Beliefs and Practices Regarding Spirituality as a Healthcare Strategy

Objective: This study examined the perceptions and practices of medical personnel regarding the spirituality in the treatment management plan of their patients. Methods: A spirituality survey was administered to doctors and nurses, soliciting responses about their beliefs and willingness to include spirituality practices in treating patients within their facility. Respondents were asked to give their views on daily practices regarding the use of spirituality in patient care and patient response to treatment. Results: The doctors’ responses suggest that they believe that solutions to medical problems, patient recovery, and coping are related to mind and body stress issues that surgery and drugs may not necessarily cure. The emphasis on self-care for some of these medical problems can put the patient back in control and eliminate the use of excessive drugs in the treatment process. Chances for health and well being of patients are improved if good medical practices are combined with a strong mental and psychological disposition to provide a vital foundation for directly confronting diseases. Conclusion: Spiritual engagement helps to support a psychological outlook that is necessary for fighting diseases and coping adequately with life’s tragedies. This approach provides a well-balanced attack on disease and increases the patient’s chances of coping and surviving.

Regulating dual-use research:Lessons from Israel and the United States

Over the past 20 years,and with greater urgency since the H5N1 papers controversy(2012),dual-use research of concern(DURC)has been extensively debated by the scientific community,regulators,and the public at large.Many have raised the need to regulate DURC;however,despite the urgency of this issue,to date,only two countries have implemented specific regulations,United States and Israel(notably,China is in the final stages of creating a set of DURC-related regulations).In this paper,I have compared these policies as case studies that may benefit other countries.Therefore,the present study aimed to critically compare the DURC policies of the US and Israel and determine whether their different approaches provide a rigorous framework for the regulation of DURC.I have shown that in some aspects,they have adopted similar approaches;for example,allowing local committees to play a role in assessing the research.However,they differ in certain important aspects;for instance,the US policies have laid out a mechanism through which academic institutions and the government decide jointly on how to address risky studies,while the Israeli law places the authority solely in government hands.My aim in comparing the policies is twofold;first,to reveal the weaknesses and strengths of each policy,thereby aiding their improvement,and second,to provide those that are considering developing policies in this field an overview of what the current approaches look like,thereby enabling them to articulate their own approach while taking into account the experience gained by the US and Israel.