According to the oncologist, Nurse L. was acting immorally and unprofessional when informing her patient Michael Q. of all his treatment options including chemotherapy, and alternative treatments such as natural therapies. I strongly disagree that the nurse was acting immoral because it was the patient’s medical and legal right to know all of his options, not just the ones that may be most successful, or ones that medical professional determines as the best options. That being said, I do not believe the patient’s physician should have the final decision about their treatment, unless the patient is unable to make a final decision for himself and has no family to assist him. Because the oncologist did not tell his patient about all the treatment options, Michael Q. was not was not fully informed and therefore his agreement to receive the chemotherapy treatment was not informed consent. Although I can understand why the oncologist may consider the nurse was acting unprofessionally by Kuhse’s standards, I do not agree with the oncologist’s decision or actions. According to Kuhse, nurses should only have a position of “advocacy for patients” and should accept their apparently subservient role in the medical world. Her ideas state that truly caring …show more content…
and Michael Q., I strongly believe that Nurse L. was not acting immorally or unprofessionally. I agree with Immanuel Kant’s summarization, “All lies, including those told out of altruistic motives, are wrong.” Michael’s oncologist withheld crucial medical information and alternative treatment options. Had Michael not known about at all his options, his circumstances could have turned out extremely different. Unless Michael had the inability to make his own rational decisions or there was no one to assist him in making the decisions for him where he could not, there were no reasons for the oncologist to withhold information and make the final decision that treatment was the best option for
When it comes to caring for patients, we as nurse code to guide us in ethical decision making, According to the Code of Ethics for Nurses "each patient has the right to make an informed decision regarding their participation in research. As an advocate for the patient, nurses have a responsibility to ensure that patients are presented with information about any research being performed to the extent that an informed decision can made". Henrietta Lacks was not given this right, that is never okay, for any
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
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,
I respectfully disagree with you. In your post you stated “I believe that as a nurse I might have more knowledge of what is best for the health of the patient.” I don’t believe that a medical professional always “has more knowledge [or always knows] what is best for the health of the patient”. The Josie King story is a good example of the nurse thinking she “had more knowledge” and knew what was best for the patient. Mrs. King questioned the nurses several times throughout the care of her daughter, and if a nurse had listened to her, we might not be having this discussion today.
You are correct, the physician is taking away Mrs. M 's right to chose her medical decisions. Mrs. M 's current physician is taking away her autonomy. Mrs. M has clearly shown that she can care for herself with the help of a community health nurse. Mrs. M does deserve to sit down and be informed of her condition and current situation. As you stated, once she understands her choices then a decision can be made.
A moral dilemma that arises in a doctor-patient relationship is whether or not the doctor should always tell their patient the truth about their health. Although withholding information was a common practice in the past, in today’s world, patient autonomy is more important than paternalism. Many still are asking if it is ever morally permissible for a doctor to lie to a patient, though. David C. Thomasma writes that truth-telling is important as a right, a utility, and a kindness, but other values may be more important in certain instances. The truth is a right because respect for the person demands it.
Evans and the Ohio Department of Corrections failed Tomcik in applying basic ethical theories. Normative and applied ethics were not followed because the minimal standard of care in this case called for palpitation of the breasts, which was not done. If the physician knew that palpitation of the side of Tomcik’s breasts was the correct minimal procedure to detect cancer and he did not complete it, he failed to apply the theory of how he should behave. Deontological ethics were failed as the doctor was duty-bound to “do no harm or injustice”. (Greek Medicine, 2012)
In Joseph Collins article, “Should Doctors Tell the Truth?” he states that doctors shouldn’t tell the truth to their patients that deals with their life and death. Collins argued that doctor should withhold the truth on any circumstances. For example, when Collins blamed himself because of the death of a lawyer who suffered from kidney disease, only if he had lied to the lawyer about his health issue, the lawyer still could have been alive. However, I believe that doctors should always tell the truth to their patients regardless of the circumstances because withholding information violates patient’s autonomy and harms the doctor-patient relationship.
As a Heath Professional it is your professional duty “to provide appropriate assistance, within their sphere of knowledge and competence, in such circumstances. Wherever possible, a nurse should arrange for emergency care to be accessed and provided promptly.” Royal collage of Nursing (2018). maintain an ethical and moral approach towards patients and other Health professionals. Poor morals and ethical choices are what codes such as the ‘Code of Ethics for Nursing in Australia’, the code points out eight key ethical points that look after privacy, cultural beliefs, diversity, respectfulness of the patients that the nurses are giving therapeutic care too. The code of ethics for nursing helps outline and “guide ethical decision-making and practice, and indicate to the community the human rights standards and ethical values it can expect nurses to uphold.”
In order to properly address tough questions in medical ethics, we need to ensure that we have plausible and consistent reasons for the answers we give to those questions. To do this, we need to take a step back and ask the broader question, “What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong?” In this class, we have considered a number of possible answers to this question. Since each of these theories is inconsistent with the others, only one of them (at most) can be correct. In what follows, I consider each of these theories and argue that _________ is the most plausible.
Moral Dilemma HOSPITAL: You started your first job at a large hospital. You are assigned a patient to treat who no one wants to work with because the patient always says “NO”. The Occupational Therapy team leader tells you that you need to treat the patient because the doctor is angry that the patient has not been receiving therapy. You are told that the patient’s nurse has called to complain to the therapy department about the fact that the patient has not been receiving therapy
Nurse’s come across ethical dilemmas daily, as working in a hospital is tough and strenuous. Ethical decisions must be made all the time, as nurses and doctors are working with peoples lives. The advice I would give myself in the future while confronting and dealing with this issues would be to remember back to the different types of ethical views, and ask which view best fits the situation and my personal moral and ethical belief system. Dependent on the situation at hand, I would most likely look back to the Utilitarian View, Moral-Rights View, or Justice View of Ethics.
According to Kant nurses must determine if lying is an acceptable ethical behavior. Rationally, lying is not ethical and is not tolerable to any situation as it violates the duty to tell the truth to those individuals who are entitled to honest information, in which nurse-patient relationship or trusts will not develop. Deontologist also believes that killing a fetus is wrong and immoral. Deontology suggest that health care workers have a ? moral duty, to maintain and preserve life?
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.
His decision was influenced by his need to be alleviated of pain and Dr. Miracle was compelled by his own moral imperative. A moral imperative is the driving force for a person to make an action (Beauchamp 16-17). Dr. Miracle, as a physician, fulfilled his duty in providing medical attention, and Mr. Misery was aware of his opportunity to explore other options; his informed consent. Dr. Miracle did not undermine the physician-patient relationship as his action was driven by the guidelines of informed consent and his belief in improving Mr. Misery’s condition, his moral imperative. If Dr. Miracle had chosen to withhold the information of “serious side effects,” then he would be violating informed consent and his actions would be unjustified.