No abstract

BackgroundBeta thalassemia major is a severe inherited form of hemolytic anemia that results from ineffective erythropoiesis. Allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) remains the only potentially curative therapy. Unfortunately, the subgroup of adult thalassemia patients with hepatomegaly, portal fibrosis and a history of irregular iron chelation have an elevated risk for transplantation-related mortality that is currently estimated to be about 29 percent.DiscussionThalassemia patients may be faced with a difficult choice: they can either continue conventional transfusion and iron chelation therapy or accept the high mortality risk of HSCT in the hope of obtaining complete recovery.Throughout the decision making process, every effort should be made to sustain and enhance autonomous choice. The concept of conscious consent becomes particularly important. The patient must be made fully aware of the favourable and adverse outcomes of HSCT. Although it is the physician's duty to illustrate the possibility of completely restoring health, considerable emphasis should be put on the adverse effects of the procedure. The physician also needs to decide whether the patient is eligible for HSCT according to the "rule of descending order". The patient must be given full details on self-care and fundamental lifestyle changes and be fully aware that he/she will be partly responsible for the outcome.SummaryOnly if all the aforesaid conditions are satisfied can it be considered reasonable to propose unrelated HSCT as a potential cure for high risk thalassemia patients.

No abstract

Natural childbirth has ceased to be considered the gold standard in the delivery room. For this reason cesarean section on demand is increasing. Many obstetricians justify this phenomenon on evidence-based obstetrical practice. However, other pieces of evidence demonstrate that the data are often a product of the social milieu, and as stated by Wendland, "technology magically wards off the unpredictability and danger of birth". In a recent paper, Kalish pointed out several problems with cesarean deliveries in the absence of medical indications regarding issues of good clinical practice, autonomy, and informed consent. From the late 1990s, the medical community began to speak in favor of women's autonomy in childbirth decisions thus supporting the maternal choice and request for a cesarean section. Starting from these new considerations, it is of primary importance to understand whether emphasizing patient's autonomy is the best, or the only, way to helping the medical decisional process. This general approach may be helpful in all the other cases in which patient's autonomy and physician's responsibility appear to be intertwined in an apparent conflicting manner. We fear that the rhetoric of autonomous choice represents a fundamental shift from medicine-based beneficence toward a perilous relationship founded mainly on patient's wishes, representing a dangerous slippery slope where the physician could be reduced to the role of a functionary delegated to execute patient's claims and demands.