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.
Not only does it give physician, who is still human, too much power and room for human error, it is religiously and morally incorrect, violates the Hippocratic oath, and above devalues the precious gift of life. As stated earlier, treatment is possible and should be looked into instead of giving up. Donating your final moments to research and to help aid in discovering different treatment options, could give a child a chance to live that is diagnosed with the same illness. There will always be pros and cons to this subject but my opinion stands. A person has to right to refuse or accept treatment, but should not be able to take their own lives by assistance of a
Despite these beliefs of the physician, patients are left feeling discriminated against and feel unworthy of healthcare. Physicians go into this career to care for patients and they should go into this career willing to take care of patients of other gender identities, race, and other religious beliefs other than their own.
But, without trust patients are less-confident that decisions made are in their best interest. communication influences understanding and cooperation increases trust between both parties, nurses must monitor their interaction with patients to avoid a false sense of security. This false sense may cause potential harm to patients because substitute treatments are not offered. So, to lighten or reduce this concern the nurse must understand and listen to the patient’s life circumstances. A failure to do so may limit how much the patient’s concerns are considered in the decision making process(
In Julie Beck’s informative article, “This Article Won 't Change Your Mind,” she explores and challenges the phenomenon that belief and choices are often influenced by a person’s moral characteristics and their environment. Beck first uses a short anecdote explaining how people often chooses to only believe the things that they want to believe. If a subject matter is too uncomfortable to discuss, people often become dismissive and choose not to acknowledge the unbearable truth. Beck then continues to pursue her argument by applying reliable studies in order to strengthen the ethicality of her beliefs. She uses sources such as T Leon Festinger’s study and Stanley Schachter’s book, When Prophecy Fails, in order to imbed undeniable facts into
Few things need to consider when telling to patients and patients family with regards to their prognosis like patients reactions or emotions and even financial resource. Health care professional are expected to give the detailed information to their client whether it is desirable or undesirable news. But on the other hand, they need consider whether telling truth would help or make situations more worst. Ethical dilemma among health care professional arises, either telling the truth or withholding the truth would benefit the patient.
Which further allows the individual to make an appropriate decision in their own interest even if not the best interest. For example, PTs consider a certain intervention to be more beneficial to the patient and the patient is not willing to undergo the treatment; in such circumstances it is the duty of the therapist to explain the need of the intervention and also provide the patient with other treatment options available and leave the decision for the patient to make depending on what suits him/her the best. Autonomy and beneficence have different ideologies but they need to be in sync for the healthcare provider to strike a balance between both and obtain optimum health care for the patient. Even with such an ethical dilemma it is the duty of the health care worker to provide appropriate information to the patient and to convince the individual to make the best choice without affecting the autonomy of the patient.
Smart is of the opinion that “People who do not accept the minimisation of net pain to be hardened and immoral”. It can be said that Randle inflicts a degree of pain or more aptly distress on his fellow patients by forcing them to step over the excessive sense of precaution instilled in the group by Nurse Ratched, for the greater good. J.C.C Smart’s opinion seems to have a more compassionate tone to it, in stark contrast to Immanuel Kant’s standpoint on Deontology, which would align more heavily with that of Nurse Ratchet’s character. Kant would argue that duty should take precedence over personal desires and that the morality of an action should be based on the action’s adherence to a rule or set of
Professionals should tell patients about the costs of tests to be transparent. No doubt, testing, and screening are costly, and some may be labeled preventive care that isn’t covered by insurance may not pay for. Further testing may be better to establish a diagnosis. Repeated testing may be overwhelming to patients, but it’s preferable to giving a wrong diagnosis.
By labeling treatment as unnecessary, the doctor suggests that we are in a situation where the treatment does not bring any medical benefit. Of course, in ordinary situations, to not recommend unnecessary treatment it depends of good medical practice, and it is the subject of many studies, protocols and lessons of continuing medical education. In these situations, the decision on the futility of a treatment is a decision to rationalize costs. In life and death situations, however, the physician must ensure that by declaring that one treatment is useless, he has not been driven by costs and does not make an economic judgment. In this case it would be a serious mistake to label his own decision as futility.
Similarly, a PT should only recommend a product if they have objectively determined that it would benefit the patient. If, say, a vendor offers monetary incentive in exchange for recommending their product, the PT many not be able to objectively judge the quality and effectiveness of the product. As described in APTA Guide to Professional Conduct, Principle 4.4, “A physical therapist shall not invite, accept, or offer gifts, monetary incentives, or other considerations that affect or give an appearance of affecting his/her professional judgment.” However, if the product is indeed effective, supported by sufficient evidence, and the PT would recommend it regardless of the incentive, the PT can legally accept the vendor’s offer as long as they are transparent with their patients about their “financial interests,” as explained in the APTA Guide to
Making sure a person is safe should be everyone 's number one priority. Even though people go to therapists because they want someone to talk to who won 't judge them or divulge their secrets, divulging information about harming another person does not fall under that category. I agree that it can be very difficult for a therapist to decide when a patient actually intends on following through with the death threats or if the patient is just trying to vent. However, if he or she is a good therapist, then he or she should know their patient well enough to decide whether they are being serious.
I believe it is best to keep a distance from Sharon, because it will help avoid future conflicts between me and her. Also, I think that my supervisors will be against me being Sharon’s therapist because it will go against the company’s policy. In other words, it will be hard to draw the line between professional and personal life between the two of us. Furthermore, in the ethical principles of the psychologist, and code of conduct, it is acceptable for the therapist to terminate the therapy with a client that has an intimate relationship with someone that can alter the treatment of the client. Also in the ethical standards for human services field, engaging ourselves in a close relationship with a client is prohibited.