Should the patient be able to make medical decisions or should the doctors? Whose body is it anyway? Which judgement call should be made, the practical or the personal belief? The author, Atul Gawande, proposes these questions in the book, Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science. Gawande uses multiple stories to answer these questions. First, he conveys the story of a man, Joseph Lazaroff, who had terminal cancer that left him slightly paralyzed. He could have surgery to help be relieved from the pain, which is dangerous or he could die peacefully. “Lazaroff wanted surgery. The oncologist was dubious about the choice, but she called the neurosurgeon.” “He warned them at length about how terrible the risks were and how limited …show more content…
The doctor proceeds to inform the patient that she has, “an area of ‘suspicious’ calcifications” (Gawande 217), and that she needs to have the tissue in question removed for further testing. This being the fourth time doctors are recommending to have this procedure, and all the times prior she complied, to find nothing. She refuses this go around for a biopsy. “Do you let her do?” (Gawande 218). Although, the decisions times before, she allowed doctors with professional experience make the call, proving to be a mistake that was forever body altering, she makes the final …show more content…
Although, the real question that arose was, “is it ethically correct for important decisions that need to be made about an individual’s life including health should be made by another person” (223-224). He answers the question throughout the entire book using multiple personal stories to his advantage, answering with it is in small amounts ethically correct for one to have a deciding factor in some points of the decisions involving their health but the full decision. “The doctor should not make all these decisions, and neither should the patient. Something must be worked out between them, one on one- a personal modus operandi” (Gawande 223). I believe that Gawande’s point is valid, health related decisions should be made by both the professional and the
The Due to the many medical dysfunctions that happened while Dr. Moe Mathis was in charge, this physician faces a major accusation of medical malpractice. However, when the physician saw the possible mistake he did in identifying Mr. Swensen’s medical condition, he decided to do justice by himself and falsify the medical reports for prostate cancer by doing a second cross-check of the prostate. But, what he did was use the prostate of another patient who indeed had prostate cancer at a similar stage as the initial diagnoses of Howard Swenson. This constitutes Fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, which is a major offence and moreover committed by a trusted, and respected medical professional. Additionally, by removing the prostate of a dead patient to use it to change Mr. Swenson’s medical reports, Moe violated a human corpse, and this constitutes desecration of a human body.
At times, doctors have to choose between the preservation and honor of a patient's dignity or to break ethical guidelines to help the human races’ health. A doctor who puts his patients’ well-being as his priority, usually respects the patient’s wishes. However, many factors influence a person’s decision to conduct an unethical experiment. In the contemporary biography, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot shows that scientists constantly discover and develop new concepts and procedures that help heal numerous people, despite the unethical experiments that they conduct on living organisms.
Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for.
I think he could have relied heavily on non-maleficence in a strict sense of the term that doctor should not do any harm. Also, throughout all four cases I believed that we relied heavily on taking into account how the family would be affected by the decision, which shows a utilitarian perspective. I also, noticed that when it came down to the final decisions autonomy of the patient was not always respected by all three of us, such as the car accident victim. She wanted death, but we all denied her because we were worried about her mental health. Although with autonomy we should have still respected her wishes, if we were solly basing our decision on
Case Six outlines a physician who has encountered a moral dilemma. A seventeen-year-old girl is pregnant – estimated to be eleven or twelve weeks along – and wishes to keep the baby. She has not told her mother, as she fears she will be pressured into a getting an abortion, and has asked the physician to keep the secret. The physician agrees to not disclose the pregnancy to the patient’s mother until all three parties can discuss the matter in person the following week. Not long after the appointment, the patient’s mother calls the physician’s office, demanding to know why her daughter had been there.
Making a decision is a one thinking process of selection to produce a result for a final choice. A story of a young doctor who wants a family to make a final decision on medical treatments of one dying patient is an example of “Letting Doctor Make the Tough Decisions” by Pauline W. Chen. This article presents about how difficult it is to make a decision between a doctor and patients, and how medical decisions should be made in this situation. By doctors are a main audience of this article. In additions, Chen uses 3 rhetorical strategies on the article, by 3 rhetorical strategies are Logos that is using logic, Pathos that is using emotions and Ethos that is using credibility of the author.
In the article “Medical Technology and Ethical Issues” by William E. Thompson and Joseph V. Hickey give the pros and cons of medical technology deciding patient outcomes instead of a doctors instincts. Critics and ethicists are against the RIP system. According to the authors, the program makes informed decisions about life saving treatments. “In emergency rooms across the world, this program is helping doctors make life–saving treatments or simply allow patients to die. Using statistical probability, the program analyzes all of the input on a particular patient and makes a prognosis on the likely hood of survival”.
This essay uses the book“ The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot to investigate the requirements of informed consent ,by informing the patients through every steps Henrietta’s story is an example on informed consent. On one hand theorists such as, Dale Keigner argue that informed consent should be notified by the doctor to the patient and the patient should be knowledge on the proceeding that the doctors will maintain. On the other hand , Lewis Soloman contends that the doctors should be able to take any specimens from the patient after operating without consent for scientific reasons and research. . He also asserted that doctors should be able to deduct any specimen that will be able to help in the science research. Others maintain
After reading this case I was terribly shocked about the fact that something like this could happen in our medical history. I couldn’t believe how a patient could be neglected so much. Based on the material that we have learned the lack of ethical theory of deontology in Dr. Evan was disturbing. As a doctor Dr. Evan’s role is to care for patients, keep them away from harm and prolong their life. Though in the trial he stated as if he didn’t care.
While her actions might not be seen as the best decision, she made one and did her best to make the rightful one under such poor circumstances that were out of her control. On the other hand, the Hospital should have prepared the health care faculty professionals for situations like such. One single doctor or a group are not at fault, because the hospital system failed them first. Multiple physicians and nurses made decisions on that day that saved and killed people.
The result was a successful operation but Lazeroff died while recovering (Gawande P.87). Lazeroff thought he was making the right decision but it want bad. The doctor knew the result of the surgery in Lazeroff’s condidtion and he knew that Lazeroff was at risk of dying. Therefore, he should have disagreed with the patient’s decision or refused to do the surgery to avoid such a thing from
(Keyes 206) Charlie now is completely certain that he will die, seeing all side-effects and the bad side of the operation. Last, the doctors were not supposed to harm him, even though that they probably knew about the outcome of the surgery, written in the Belmont Report, states “Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: 1. Do not harm and 2. Maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms.”
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
What is Assisted Suicide? Is it ethical to allow someone to take their own life, let alone help them take it? Whose decision is it to decide whether or not someone should be able to consent to die? What legal issues are involved with assisted suicide? Is it legal?
The case study I have decided to research and report pertains to case study 6-2 of our textbook. This case regards the 12 year old girl that is mature, informed and is choosing to refuse a cardiac transplant. This is the case that has greatly captured my attention this semester. This is an interesting case, principles clash and the circumstances are unique. The transplant surgeon, Dr. Hamid, wants the 12-year-old Emma Ogden, to opt for a heart transplant in order to save her life.