House M.D. uses the consistent lying of patients and a contrasting lecture to further explore the conflict between beneficence and autonomy in medical ethics. Medical autonomy is the ability for a patient to make his or her own decision when it comes to their health. Medical beneficence however, is the doctor’s responsibility to maximize the benefits of the patient and minimize the cost. These two parts of medical ethics are constantly in conflict throughout the entire House series, with the motto of the show being “Everybody Lies”. The main character House, with his cynical and untrusting nature, is the ideal doctor to deal with these, sometimes unknowingly deceitful patients. The chosen episode “Three Stories” exhibits this deception of patients with a gripping detective-like story of three patients who all have leg pain, but one of them is lying about the source of the pain.
The main characters of this series consist of House and his fellow co-workers James Wilson, Lisa Cuddy, Eric Foreman, Allison Cameron, and Robert Chase. The more important of these characters being James Wilson, who is Dr. House’s only real friend and acts as his conscience in many cases. The typical episode starts with a cold open showing an event outside of the hospital that eventually leads to the symptoms for that week’s patient. The team arrives at different basic diagnoses and presents them to House who discounts their findings, claiming them to be missing unconsidered factors. The clues are missing often because the patient has intentionally or unintentionally lied about the symptoms or circumstances. These factors lead to the patient being misdiagnosed and, in some cases, mistreated multiple times over the episode. This consistent misdirection that...
... middle of paper ...
... argue. “The world community has deemed individual autonomy to predominate over beneficence in making medical decisions.” (Fogoros) House M.D. delves deep into this conflict with the deceitful patients who withhold vital information from the doctors that could lead to a correct diagnosis. The particular episode “Three Stories” shows this conflict through the lecture with House and the contrasting students. The show conveys the idea that beneficence is more important than autonomy but also realizes that this argument is hard to make and reflects that in its episodes.
Works Cited
Fogoros, Rich. "Why Does America Love Dr. House?" Better Health. N.p., 15 Apr. 2009. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Shore, David. "Three Stories." House M.D. Fox. 17 May 2005. Television.
Thompson, Ethan, and Jason Mittell. How to Watch Television. New York (N.Y.): New York University, 2013. Print.
Not only educational shows accomplish these goals, but fictional television programs can often incorporate information that requires viewers to grapple with a topic using logical reasoning and a global consciousness. In addition, not to diminish the importance of reading, television reaches those who may never pick up a book or who might struggle with reading problems, enabling a broader spectrum of people to interact with cognitive topics. Veith has committed the error of making generalizations about two forms of media when, in truth, the situation varies depending on quality and content. However, what follows these statements is not just fallacious, but
For anyone who has ever worked in healthcare, or simply for someone who has watched a popular hit television show such as Grey’s Anatomy, General Hospital, House or ER know that there can be times when a doctor or health care provider is placed in extremely difficult situations. Often times, those situations are something that we watch from the sidelines and hope for the best in the patient’s interest. However, what happens when you place yourself inside the doctors, nurses, or any other of the medical provider’s shoes? What if you were placed in charge of a patient who had an ethically challenging situation? What you would you do then? That is precisely what Lisa Belkin accomplishes in her book “First Do No Harm”. Belkin takes the reader on
According to Terrence F. Ackerman, as of the 1980s the American Medical Association had to include the respect for a person’s autonomy as a principle of medical ethics (Ackerman 14, 1982). This includes having the physician provide all the medical information to the patient even if the information could cause negative implication onto the patient. The physician is also expected to withhold all information of the patient from 3rd parties (Ackerman 14, 1982). Although it is seen as standard in today’s world, in
Gedge, E., & Waluchow, W. (2012). Readings in health care ethics (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Denise Dudzinski, PhD, MTS, Helene Starks, PhD, MPH, Nicole White, MD, MA (2009) ETHICS IN MEDICINE. Retrieved from: http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pad.html
Presently 98% of the households in the United States have one or more televisions in them. What once was regarded as a luxury item has become a staple appliance of the American household. Gone are the days of the three channel black and white programming of the early years; that has been replaced by digital flat screen televisions connected to satellite programming capable of receiving thousands of channels from around the world. Although televisions and television programming today differ from those of the telescreens in Orwell’s 1984, we are beginning to realize that the effects of television viewing may be the same as those of the telescreens.
Healthcare ethics is defined as a system of moral principles that guide healthcare workers in making choices regarding medical care. At its core lies our attitudes regarding our personal rights and obligations we have to others. When an unprecedented situation comes into play, we rely on medical ethics to help determine an outcome that would be the best case scenario for all involved. In order to appropriately review this case study, we must first identify the key stakeholders, the ethical principles, policy implications at the federal, state, and local levels, financial implications, and a viable resolution for the situation.
Roger Higgs, in “On Telling Patients the Truth” supplies commonly used arguments for paternalistic deception. For the purposes of this paper, paternalism will be defined as, “interference with one’s autonomy or self determination for their own good.” The first argument for paternalistic deception is founded on the idea that medicine is a technical subject where there are very few guarantees (613). Thus, Higgs supplies the argument that not only is it impossible for a patient to understand the true breadth of their diagnosis and prognosis, but additionally that medical predictions are not medical truths. The second argument for paternalistic deception comes from the belief that patients do not actually want to know the truth about their condition, and could suffer from worse health outcomes if they are told the truth (614, 615).
This freedom of choice, Gawande states, ultimately places a burden on either the doctor or the patient as the patient ultimately choose a course of treatment that is ultimately detrimental as in the case of Lazaroff, a patient with only a few weeks to live, but rather insist on “the day he would go back to work.” Despite the terrible risks and the limited potential benefits the neurosurgeon described, Lazaroff continued to opt to surgery and eventually died painfully as a result of surgery. Gawande suggests that Lazaroff “chose badly because his choice ran against his deepest interests,” which was to live despite his briefing remaining time, ultimately distorting his judgement into choosing a course of treatment that ultimately ended his life in a much more painful manner. Another case of patient decisions that Gawande discusses is Mr. Howe, who aggressively refused to be put on a breathing machine, neglecting the fact that “with antibiotics and some high-tech support...he would recover fully.” As Gawande and K awaited for Mrs. Howe’s decision to save her husband’s life, Mrs. Howe emotionally breaks down
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
Ethical principals are extremely important to understand in the healthcare field. Ethical responsibilities in any situation depend on the role of the healthcare worker and the nature of the decision being made. Healthcare administrators and professionals must make ethical decisions that can be an everyday or controversial situation. When making such decisions, it is imperative to consider the four major principles of ethics: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and distributive. By using these four principles, ethical decisions can effectively be made. For the purpose of this paper, examined will be the example of the treatment of an uninsured homeless patient. Poor health care be a cause and a result of homelessness.
The delivery of healthcare mandates a lot of difficult decision making for healthcare providers as well as patients. For patients, much of the responsibility is left to them especially when serious health problems occur. This responsibility deals with what treatments could be accepted, what treatments could be continued, and what treatments could be stopped. Overall, it considers what route should be taken in regards to the health interests of the patient. However, there are circumstances in which patients cannot decide for themselves or communicate what they want in terms of their healthcare. This is where the ethical issue concerning who should be responsible for making these important healthcare decisions occur if a patient was to be in this sort of situation. Healthcare providers can play a role in the healthcare decision making as their duty is to act in the best interest of the patient.
However, one can reach an ethical decision closest to being fair by understanding what does do right relationships require and what can eventually lead to human flourishing? Human flourishing is the goal of the human life because it leads to ultimate “eudaemonia” that is happiness. According to Panicola, “It is not possible to be in right relationships and ultimately flourish as human beings without developing virtues…” (Panicola 51). When Dr. Derek decides to hide the preeclamptic condition from the patient and her husband, he was abiding by the virtue of empathy because he wanted them to take a break from always being worried about death. Even though his intentions for hiding the truth were good, his decision indicates that he was not successful in upholding the virtue of honesty, integrity and courage. He was not virtuous because the “journey towards virtues requires moral principles” (Panicola 54). The moral principles that apply to this case are the principles of veracity and informed consent, under human dignity and the principles of rationality and stewardship under justice.
Gauntlett, D. Hill, A. BFI (1999) TV Living: Television, Culture, and Everyday Life, p. 263 London: Routledge.
Medical ethics refers to the relationship between health professionals and patients. The trust of patients in physicians has been vanishing. Today a lot of health care providers primary concerns seem to be in profit rather than in providing the proper healthcare to the public. Medical ethics consist of several different principles. Nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, and autonomy are just a few of the many principals. Nonmaleficence enacts that a health care providers, can never use treatment to injure or wrong their patients. Beneficence claims that health care providers are obligated to help others further their interest. Justice requires health providers treat every patient as equal and provide equal treatment for everyone with the same