Nevzat Alkan

Health professionals' attitude toward euthanasia: a cross-sectional study from Turkey.

There is an ongoing debate on the definition of euthanasia and attempts to change laws about euthanasia and its practice in many countries. It is the medical doctors and the other health professionals who will elucidate the issue. Therefore, we performed this study to reveal attitude of Turkish health professionals toward euthanasia. This is an observational and cross-sectional study and data were collected with a questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 545 health professionals in Samsun, a city in the Black Sea Region in Turkey. Data were analyzed with SPSS package programs. Of all health professionals included in the study, 43.5% were medical doctors and 45.5% auxiliary health professionals. Of all participants, 33.6% did not object to euthanasia and 7.9% were asked to perform euthanasia. Eighty point seven percent of the participants noted that euthanasia could be abused even if a euthanasia law were passed. It can be concluded that the health professionals should have a chance to discuss euthanasia and that their attitude toward and their expectations and worries about euthanasia should be taken into account when a euthanasia law is drafted.

The attitudes of medical students to autopsy

To assess the attitudes of medical students to autopsy, 6th year students in the Medical Schools located in Istanbul, Edirne and Bursa in Turkey were asked to participate in a questionnaire. In the questionnaire, the main questions were on the number of autopsies they had attended, the number of autopsies they had participated in, their reaction to the first autopsy, whether they felt the conditions were adequate or not and what would their objectives be upon deciding to perform an autopsy. In the evaluation, it was detected that most of the participants had attended an autopsy, only a minority had participated in autopsy and most of them felt uncomfortable and inadequate on performing autopsy. The results were discussed with respect to the literature.

Changes in Handwriting due to Alzheimer’s Disease a Case Report

and signature comparisons are frequently per- formed in forensic investigations of documents. Mistakes in conclu- sion might be due to lack of sufficient documentation and informa - tion. Many factors can affect handwriting and signature. These fac- tors are divided into two groups: dependent or independent of the in- dividual at the time the handwriting or signature is made. Therefore, the situations leading to differences between individuals and in the individuals own handwriting and signature should be determined. Currently, average life expectancy and quality have increased due to the developments in health services. Thus, an increasing number of elderly people are engaged in an active daily life and trade. Alzhei- mers Disease (AD) can develop in the elderly; this is a condition that could alter handwriting and signature considerably over time. In forensic document examination, comparing the document in question containing handwriting or signature with the original documents prepared before the document in question was prepared is important. However, if alterations have developed secondary to a disease, the documents prepared before and after the disease af- fected the individual should be assessed together. Likewise, in the present case, the examiners making com- parisons using handwriting and signatures from different periods reached entirely different conclusions. The case is a bill prepared in 1994. The payee of the bill is a male born in 1925 and diagnosed with AD shortly before his death in 1998. The indebted person in the bill is the payees spouse. For the assessment of handwriting and signature, the first endorsement consisting of the handwritten name and signature was used. Sev- eral expert reports regarding the same document had been commis- sioned; these reached different views. The document was sent to The Council of Forensic Medicine to assess the identification and the previous reports. After re-evaluation, the handwriting was de- clared to belong to the payee. In this study, the reason that the experts delivered opposing opinions on the identification of a document handwritten by a per - son with AD after being referred to court was investigated. Based on the judicial file, the document examiners did not have the opportunity to evaluate all factors affecting the handwriting or signature of the individual, and an adequate number of handwrit- ing and signature examples were not collected for comparison. Consequently, the examiners reached different opinions. Thus, the above-mentioned factors are necessary to derive a satisfactory and accurate opinion regarding the identification of handwriting or sig - nature.

Legal Regulations on Radiation Safety For Radiologists in Turkey

Editor: From the date of their invention, x rays have increasingly been used in medicine, energy production, and many related fields. Outside of their common uses, x rays may be harmful to the health of humans, nature, and the environment unless required safety measures are taken. The presence of harmful x-ray properties paved the way for the establishment of supreme committees and detailed legal arrangements that focused on the use and safety of radiation in many countries. Legal regulations concerning people who work in the field of radiology are quite old and still in use in Turkey. It is possible that these regulations, which might have been advanced and scientifically appropriate at the time of issuance, may have lost their applicability in the present day. The impact of such regulations causes Turkish people who work in the field of radiology to have very different working conditions from their counterparts in other countries. When the relative legislation is reviewed, two regulations are found to be the most dominant: Law No. 3153, accepted on April 19, 1937, and effective as of April 28, 1937, and Code No. 2/10857, accepted on April 27, 1939, and effective as of May 6, 1939. Both regulate radiology, radium, and electric treatment and other physiotherapy institutions. Law No. 3153 consists of 16 articles and regulations that pertain both to radiology and to radiation therapy, since there had been no distinction made between the two fields at the time of issuance. The law contains important regulations regarding the establishment of radiologic institutions, and some of the important articles are the following (1): (a) The foundation of radiology and radiation therapy institutions is subject to the permission of the Ministry of Health. (b) The institutions founded without permission and in violation of the rules will be immediately closed by local authorities, and the people responsible for these institutions will be held liable to pay penalties. (c) Such institutions can be founded only by the physicians in charge of operating them. (d) Institutions with safety measures deemed insufficient by authorities during inspections will be closed until safety measures are brought up to acceptable standards. (e) All procedures performed on patients admitted for diagnosis and treatment will be documented in detail, and records will be kept for at least 3 months. (f) These records will have to be submitted to the Ministry of Health authorities when requested. (g) Untrained physicians and dentists may own and use radiologic devices in their practices only if the devices are used solely for the diagnosis and treatment in their patients and only if the physician or dentist receives at least 3 months of training by a specialist prior to treating patients. (h) The above provision will be valid for similar radiologic practices to be established in both government-operated and private hospitals. (i) The details of the regulations in this law will be mentioned in the codes to be issued at a later date. The rules issued on April 27, 1939, on the basis of the above-mentioned law state in short the following (2): (a) Air-conditioning systems must be installed in radiologic institutions to refresh the indoor air at least 10 times an hour, and aspirators must be placed close to the floor. (b) The ceilings, floors, and walls of radiologic institutions where daily radiation production is over 0.2 R (0.0516 mC/kg) will be armored with a 1–6-mm-thick lead coating. If said sides of the institution are not adjacent, armor is not needed. (c) The floors of radiologic institutions must be coated with rubber, wood, or oilcloth.