The field of nursing spans a broad spectrum of specialties. All present their own challenges, however one in particular is the field of Pediatric Nursing. Legal and ethical decision making usually involves the minor child’s parents or guardians.
Nurses are confronted daily with very difficult decisions that are made on the determination of right and wrong, legal, ethical, and moral understanding. Different states have laws that are specific to medical situations and a nurse must be familiar with the laws in the state where he or she is working. In 1914, Justice Benjamin Cardozo stated, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind, has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body…” (Schloendorff V.Society of N.Y. Hospital, 1914). This is referred to as informed consent. While children and adolescents are entitled to informed assent, it is usually the role of the child’s parent or legal guardian to give informed consent. Usually a child is asked to give assent prior to receiving treatment. Assent means the pediatric patient has been informed about what will happen during treatment and is willing to permit a healthcare provider to perform necessary care. While assent from the minor is not legally required for proper healthcare, federal law requires that all children age seven and older give assent before
…show more content…
The first exception is mandatory reporting for suspected child abuse (Gupta, 2007). The second exception would apply to patients who are injured by a weapon or a criminal act. The third exception would be reporting of infectious diseases to the local health department. Last, confidentiality may be breached to warn persons who may be genetically inclined to inherit a disease. Any breach of confidentiality carries both professional and legal ramifications. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) became enforceable under federal law (42 U.S.C 201 et
In some cultures, family members make treatment decisions on behalf of their loved-ones. Provided the patient consents to this arrangement and is assured that any questions about his/her medical care will be answered, the physician may seek consent from a family member in lieu of the patient.”
HIPAA is the acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that was passed by Congress in 1996. the portion of HIPAA addressing the ability to retain health coverage is actually overseen by the California Department of Insurance and the California Department of Managed Health Care. The initial two titles of HIPPA are: Title I secures medical coverage scope for laborers and their families when they change or lose their employments. Second Title II known as the Administrative Simplification arrangements, requires the foundation of national measures for electronic human services exchanges and national identifiers for suppliers, medical coverage arrangements, and managers. HIPAA 's underlying object was to guarantee and enhance the coherence of medical coverage scope for laborers evolving employments.
In 1996, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
The ethical principles and theory above are examples of why the HIPAA regulations need to be amended to address the use of genetic information. If HIPAA regulations include the release of genetic information, the uniformed sister can be aware of her possible genetic mutation. However, with the current HIPAA policy Mrs. Smith’s genetic information can only be released with her consent. HIPAA 's current policy does not seem fair regarding the uninformed sister’s circumstances. Nurses and doctors are expected to care for their patients to the best of their ability, but with the current HIPAA policies their duties are
Similarly, all clinicians need to gain consent from nearly every patient, either verbal or non-verbal, unless in an immediately life-threatening condition. To refuse consent, a patient has to have all information presented to them by the clinician including; the risks they may face, other alternatives to the initial treatment plan and likelihood of success (SCAS, 2016, 5.3). Consent given by a patient under unfair pressure from a friend/family member or clinician, is not considered consent as it is not the patient’s decision. If a valid consent has been given, then a patient is entitled to withdraw their consent at any time. If a patient lacks capacity to give consent, and has no nominated person with Lasting Powers of Attorney, then no one can give consent on their behalf (SCAS, 2016,
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in the year 1996. As a broad Congressional attempt at healthcare reform HIPAA was first introduced into Congress as the Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill named after two of its leading sponsors. The law has several different purposes that mainly focus on the protection of the healthcare provider and their patient depending on the circumstances and situations that may typically occur in a medical environment. The act itself was passed with two main objectives.
The Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) sets out explicit rules and specifies when consent is required and who can give the consent when the client is incapable of doing so (College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO), 2009). According to the HCCA (1996), there is no minimum age for providing or refusing consent in Ontario. A person is capable if he or she understands the information given that is relevant to making a decision concerning the treatment, and can appreciate the anticipated consequences of both accepting or declining a treatment. (Keatings
In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Health care Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPPA history,”n.d). This particular act is better known as HIPAA. The purpose of HIPAA was not solely to enhance answerability and to speed up operations concerning “health insurance coverage,” but its purpose was to also establish clear and strict guidelines to decrease possible misuse of how health is either insured or delivered (“HIPAA history,” n.d). HIPAA also serves more than just a “privacy act.” This act serves as protection for employees and their dependents in the event that the covered individual loses his/her coverage (USDL, n.d.).
This edit may be resource intensive. The most concerning issue is the ability of the patient to restrict access to the medical record. These restrictions may interfere with safe medical care. The heath care provider may have their decision making compromised by the non-disclosure. If the patient requires a surrogate decision maker, limiting medical information may preclude the ability to make an informed decision.
Nurses are faced with ethical dilemmas related to clinical issues, and disease and treatment decisions daily (Kangasniemi,
If we as nurses respect the confidentiality of a patient, we should do so for all the patients. However, Griffith (2007) argues that the duty of confidence should not be absolute and nurses should always consider sharing information if required. Though the principle of respecting patient autonomy and their right to confidentiality is broken here, the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence is uphold. Nurses have an obligation to protect patient’s confidentiality but the duty to warn an innocent party of imminent harm is far more critical. Therefore, breaking confidentiality here is potentially doing more good than
Newborn screening is a public health program designed to screen infants shortly after birth for a list of conditions that are treatable, but not clinically evident in the newborn period. Apprised consent defined The purpose of obtaining apprised consent is to verify that patients have been primarily apprised of available treatment options including their potential perils. This denotes that the patient understands each option and can make a decision in accordance with their acceptable quality of life. The Controversy is Newborn screening should not require apprised consent The medical provider must disclose information on the treatment, test, or procedure in question, including the expected benefits and peril, and the likelihood (or probability)
This review will identify the precarious circumstances under which children are able to make decisions against the use life saving medical practices. In order to investigate this claim, I have outlined the stipulations that are in place that allow adults to act in accordance with their desires concerning their medical treatments. Furthermore, it is described how these contingencies relate to a child's rights in the same context. One consideration is that most adults under similar circumstances are legally considered mentally capable of understanding the effects of deciding against treatment. Another condition includes laws protecting religious practices, individual customs, and other beliefs that may be impacted by accepting medical treatment
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.