Papers presented at the fourth annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making are discussed in the context of a review of the rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field of medical decision making (MDM). Advocates claim that probabilistic MDM techniques will incorporate diagnostic information, treatment options and outcomes, patient preferences, societal ethics, and financial considerations into a rational framework for making decisions in the face of uncertainty.
This article highlights some observations made in the American Occupational Therapy Association/American Occupational Therapy Foundation Clinical Reasoning Study, an ethnographic study of 14 occupational therapists working in a large teaching hospital. Concepts and premises that frequently appear in the clinical reasoning in medicine literature are discussed and compared and contrasted to observations and interpretations made of the practice and reasoning strategies of the occupational therapists who were participants in the Clinical Reasoning Study. It is postulated that similarities in the reasoning strategies of the members of the two professions are a result of use of the scientific model that calls for hypothetical reasoning. Differences, it is proposed, are accounted for by the difference in the particular focus, goals, and tasks of the two professions and the nature of the practice in those arenas. Five hypotheses are proposed as questions for further research in clinical reasoning in occupational therapy.
Perfect Quantum Cloning Machines (QCM) would allow to use quantum nonlocality for arbitrary fast signaling. However perfect QCM cannot exist. We derive a bound on the fidelity of QCM compatible with the no-signaling constraint. This bound equals the fidelity of the Bu\v{z}ek-Hillery QCM.