The case study of Mrs. S presents the reluctance of Mrs. S to obtain the surgery needed to fix her heart problems. The family support and good health of Mrs. S and her husband appears positive in every avenue of life. The refusal of Mrs. S declining the surgery is an example of autonomy and informed consent. The decision of the physicians to suggest surgery to replace the heart value seems logical based on her current health condition.
The principle of autonomy allows the patient to make decisions about their own health care options. This includes selecting no treatment even if the consequences can be fatal. This dilemma can be difficult for some medical professionals, but as long as the patient is competent they have the freedom to choose. (Cordasco, 2015) Mrs. S appears to be denying the problem based on the physicians opinion and is competent to make the decision.
Informed consent is required for any medical treatment barring any …show more content…
S does raise the possibility of higher risks for not doing the surgery, but not having any other health issues contributes to her decision to not take the risk of having the surgery. The physician is ethical in the decision to decrease Mrs. S anxiety. The physician made the correct call which is backed by the principle that the patient is assumed competent unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Medical professionals may not agree with the patient’s decision but it must be respected to avoid issues.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994
Garrett, T. (2010). Health care ethics: Principles and problems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Entwistle, V., Carter, S., Cribb, A., & McCaffery, K. (2010, March 6). Supporting Patient Autonomy: The Importance of Clinician-patient Relationships. Retrieved September 4, 2015.
Rao, K. (2008). Informed Consent: An Ethical Obligation or Legal Compulsion? Retrieved September 4,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The topic and history of medical ethics has consistently been a strongly debated issue. With numerous case-specific situations concerning as well as qualifying the matter, perhaps one of the most influential and debatable stories may be that of Henrietta Lacks. With non consensual tissue samples taken, unauthorized distribution of her cells, and seemingly careless radiation treatment for cervical cancer, it might be fair to adjudicate that the lack of ethical practice was apparent and almost even fatal. In the case study of Sofia (“Ethics in The Medical Field:
However, the lack of informed consent has raised ethical concerns and led to the establishment of guidelines for obtaining consent in medical research. Today health care providers have a responsibility to obtain informed consent from patients before conducting any medical
Therefore all health care professionals are required to provide treatment when patient has given consent voluntarily either consent or not to consent, given full information of the risks benefits and alternatives of the procedure
Atul Gawande in his article “Whose body is it, anyway?” introduced couple of cases, which discussed a controversial topic, doctors dealing with patients and making important medical decisions. These are difficult decisions in which people might have life or death choices. Who should make the important decisions, patients or doctors? Patients don’t usually know what is better for their health and while making their decisions, they might ignore or don’t know the possible side effects and consequences of these decisions.
Ethics of healthcare depends on 4 moral standards and how they are utilised; autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Autonomy, which means self-governance, is the rule for regarding the privileges of a person to settle on a choice for them self, and respecting that decision. In healthcare this implies regarding a patient's choice on treatments, regardless of the possibility that it could bring about damage or demise to themselves. Autonomy is about self-rule, control free, without impact or influence from any other person, and is tied in with making an educated and un-forced choice about their care and medicines, based from their qualities and inclinations. Alongside autonomy is the principle of justice, which incorporates reasonableness
Autonomy: In a healthcare setting, the right of a patient to make informed choices about their body is defined as autonomy. The moral principle of respect for autonomy directs healthcare providers to refrain from preventing patients from making their own decisions unless these choices pose serious risks to the patient or society. This means that an informed and competent patient has the ability to either accept or decline treatments, surgeries and medications. From the information gathered in the assignment case, it can be assumed that Joseph is in a rational state of mind.
Medicine has changed in ways over the years that one might have never thought twice about having anything like that happen to them. People today have increased their knowledge overall about their health situations and how to treat themselves. Patients are stepping up and making decisions about their healthcare choices each day with physicians. And in this process it has turned out to be so important for people to understand what is truly being done before medical treatment is given. We have talked this semester about informed consent and how important it is that our patients understand the meaning of what they are having done.
However, the process is certainly not perfect. Many patients do not fully understand what exactly it is they’re signing. Nonetheless, physicians must explain to patients to the best of their abilities. Informed consent is a vital process. Although most people are willing to help with research that will positively contribute to the future of medicine, a majority would be appalled to discover
The four core ethical principles that are called into question in the movie “Miss Evers’ Boys” are autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Autonomy refers to the right of the patient to function independently and the ability to self-direct. This means that patients are entitled to decide what will happen to them, and if deemed competent, they have the right to either consent to or refuse treatment. All nurses and healthcare personal would be required to respect the patient’s wishes, even if they do not agree with them. Beneficence is the core principle that refers to the act of ‘doing good’ and advocating for the patient.
Informed consent must never be assumed. On the other side of the spectrum, informed refusal is the patient's right to deny any of the services recommended. From a legal standpoint, it is important to always document informed consent and refusal to avoid any legal
The practice of health care includes many scenarios that have to do with making adequate decisions when it comes to a patient’s life, and the way they are treated. Having an ethical code in all health care organizations is very important, because it helps health care workers with reaching a suited and ethical decision when it comes to the patient. In health care, patient will always be put first, and their autonomy will always be respected. Nevertheless, when there is a situation where a patient might be in harm, or might be making their condition worse because of the decisions they made. Health care workers will always be there to
From time to time, social work practitioners face different challenges and one of such example is being confronted with ethical dilemmas. An ethical dilemma is defined as “when the social worker sees himself or herself as facing a choice between two equally unwelcoming alternatives, which may involve a conflict of moral values, and it is not clear which choice will be the right one” (Banks, 2012). Ethical dilemmas can occur in the context of either client or organisational-related conflict situations at work. The first ethical dilemma is when the patient refuses medical treatment and services because he or she would not accept that there is any problem.
Patients have a right to complain about the doctor's refusal to the Management. Provision of Treatment requires patient’s choice and informed consent. Even if a patient has signed a general consent clause, the patient can still refuse medical treatment or procedures. However, in exceptional or emergency situations a doctor may be legally justified in performing surgery or providing treatment without the patient's consent. The patient should be competent and capable of making such a decision to give a consent.