Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics of healthcare
Ethical Dilemma By A Healthcare Professional
Informed consent in healthcare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Q.1
Consent is agreeing with an action that is proposed by another person (NSW Health, 2005). The principles of consent include valid consent, voluntary decision-making and ability to make an informed decision. In legal and ethical principles you must gain valid consent before starting a procedure, this principle reflects on the decisions the patient has to their own bodies and is a fundamental part of good practice (NSW Health, 2005).
For consent to be valid an individual must consent to the procedure freely and voluntarily, hence consent should not be forced or obtained by assault or battery. When consent is given it must be specifically related to the procedure, this consent should not be manipulated and falsely described to a patient ability to make an informed decision refers to a person who has the legal capacity (NSW Health, 2014). Therefore the individual must have the capability to retain information that is given to them; for example the person must process the information, believe it and balance the risks and benefits of undergoing the procedure (NSW Health, 2014). Additionally, voluntary decision-makings give a right to the patient to refuse a procedure at anytime. Consequently, healthcare care staff are required to respect the patient’s desires, despite the fact that not taking action may lead to death or serious harm (NSW Health, 2014).
…show more content…
In the case study, it states Mr Smith is refusing to have the procedure done as it will result with a scar and Mr Smith has stated “I would prefer to die than have a scar”.
It then states that Dr Green is influencing Mr Smith’s decision-making by asking Rebecca to intervene. This would require Rebecca to provide Mr Smith with information to influence his response however she would persuade him by not concealing all the risks of a procedure (NSW Health,
2005). Thus, Rebecca should inform Dr Green that if she does not disclose all the information to Mr Smith then they would have not obeyed by the principles of consent as the patient would be agreeing to a procedure that he does not have clear appreciation and understanding of the facts implications and consequences of an action (NSW Health, 2005). Therefore, Rebecca should state to Dr Green that she would not attempt to influence Mr. Smith’s decision by talking to him, unless she is to state both the benefits and implications of the procedure. Q.2. Consent is based around the four-biomedical principles; these include autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Autonomy relates to being in control of ones self’s choices without others interfering or attempting to take control (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Non-maleficence reflects on the concept of not implying harm (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Beneficence connotation is to act in the best interest of the patient. Justice refers is the act of unbiased and unprejudiced distribution of goods and services (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). In the case study, it states Mr Smith is refusing to have the procedure done as it will result with a scar and Mr Smith has stated “I would prefer to die than have a scar”. As the doctor is unlawfully performing the procedure, as he did not gain valid consent it exhibits as autonomy. Autonomy is being compromised as patient is being restricted of their own decision-making by the involvement and influences of others (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Dr Green and Rebecca are both acting in beneficence this is as; they are attempting to benefit the patient, as they want to get the growth that could be potentially cancerous removed (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Conversely, they are not respecting the patient’s wishes of refusing the procedure, as he does not want to be left with a scar, therefore acting Furthermore, this case conveys, as non-maleficence as the procedure is being forced on the patients against their desire, as they are inflicting harm on Mr Smith against his will (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Justice is not being portrayed as the services have not being biased or unprejudiced towards the patient (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). In this scenario autonomy outweighs beneficence as the patient had denied the procedure on multiple occasions. Autonomy is a principle element of consent and should not be compromised if that is the patient’s wishes, therefore by the medical staff are pressuring a procedure to optimise health and prevent harm to the patient if the cancer malignant but will still impose harm by resulting in a scar. Additionally, non-maleficence is conflicted with autonomy as staff are conflicting harm as they are going against the patients desire of having the growth cut out, hence restricting and interfering with the patients decision making. Q.3. Trespass is performing a task without receiving permission from the other person. Trespass is compromised of three elements; these include assault, battery and false imprisonment (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Assault refers to verbally threatening someone and leading them to believe that those actions will be carried out however not physically making contact with the person. Battery relates to threats that have lead to physically caring out those actions. False Imprisonment is where there has been deliberate, complete and direct restraint. False imprisonment can be categorised into direct or indirect restraints (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). The case study first presents as assault as Dr Green verbally demanded that Mr Smith has his growth cut out otherwise he will die from cancer, portraying strong intentions of physically harming Mr Smith. This may have lead Mr Smith to think that these actions would occur. Furthermore, by doctor proposing to do the procedure without consent it further emphasises the elements of assault (Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2015). Secondly, battery will be exhibited if the doctor carries out the actions that he had previously stated, as he did not receive consent from Mr Smith. Battery will occur if Dr Green performs the procedure without having the legal documents that allows him to perform the procedure (Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2015). Additionally, false imprisonment will be portrayed if Dr Green performs the procedure where he has not gained consent and is going against that patient’s desire (Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2015). Due to Dr Green proposing going ahead and perform a procedure on Mr Smith without his consent it will result in false imprisonment being deliberate, complete and both direct and indirect restraints (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Indirect restraints are conveyed when Dr Green says he has to get the procedure done or he will die from the cancer, additionally a direct restraint is present as Mr Smith can not physically escape the procedure (Staunton, P.J., & Chiarella, M., 2013). Q.5. a) Rebecca’s personal values may consist of fairness, compassion, honesty, and respect. Additionally, her professional values comprise of confidentiality, maintenance of requisite boundaries and self-care (Gentile, 2010d). Honesty is a difficult value to discuss as it reflects on both personal values and professional values. Moreover, ethical and legal rights form the pillars of honesty, thus forming a difficult issue to discuss with Dr Green. Honesty is closely aligned professionally with telling someone the truth; therefore in the case study Rebecca should not compromise Mr Smith of the truth or manipulate the truth, which leads to inflicting harm to Mr Smith (Gentile, 2010d). By Rebecca manipulating the truth she breaks her value of honesty, but if Rebecca decides to follow her value of honesty she is then faced with conflicting with Dr Greens desire to manipulate information and perform a procedure without obtaining valid consent. d) I believe that the GVV framework would facilitate the discussion between Rebecca and Dr Green; this is due to the framework breaking down individuals values and portraying how to act when conflict arises (Gentile, 2010d). By understanding the framework, Rebecca would identify her own values, understand her choice, anticipate that her values may result in conflict, identify the purpose of presenting her view, would reflect on her own knowledge and what she perceives to differentiate from right and wrong, would appropriately voice the manner and be educated on how to reason with Dr Green (Gentile, 2010d). Moreover, the GVV framework encourages individuals to set out their values within the workplace by challenging individuals to structure their ideas, beliefs and values
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
Consent is necessary from everyone, not only those who can verbalise his or her needs. It is important to find out the persons communication needs so that they can be involved in discussions around their needs and preferences. My duty of care is to ensure that choices are given, and that appropriate support is obtained where there is lack of capacity is the decision is complex and the individual cannot consent. This may be from families or next of kin or using advocates to ensure that the client’s best interests are maintained. There may be past events or requests that could indicate the client’s preferences, and these must be considered when choices have to be made by others. Any preferences should be recorded on care plans and shared with relevant others to be able to determine the best interests of the person. Decisions should also be put off until the client is able to make their own choices where possible and not taken on their behalf through assuming we know
In Amira’s case, an issue of consent is arisen that her GP has not explained to her much about the conditions she is suffering and the medication that he prescribed. Amira was left a little confused because she did not has the chance to ask questions. For obtaining consent, it must be informed and capacity which means that Amira must be given all of the information of the treatment and they understand the information provided by the doctor and they can use it to make a decision (13). Obtaining consent will lead to enhancement of the efficiency to the treatment because Amira is happy and showing agreement to the
In America, the legal age to sign off on any medical consent is 18 years of age. Seventeen year olds should be able to compose their own medical decisions, and sign off on their own medical consents. Power should land in their hands, accompanied by the professional advice of a doctor. It is your body, be compelled to fabricate a decision without having to have your parent’s signature.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
According to the NICE (2015) health and social care professionals should always seek valid consent from people with dementia. This should entail informing the person of options, and checking that he or she understands, that there is no coercion and that he or she continues to consent over time. If the person lacks the capacity to make a decision, the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 must be followed. The nurse assessed the patient capacity and ensured that the decision made was in the best interest of the patient. The doctor uses specialist knowledge and experience and clinical judgement, and the patient’s views and understanding of their condition, to identify which investigations or treatments are likely to result in overall benefit for the patient (GMC, 2008). They took into consideration how the decision made will benefit Jean. After carrying out a full assessment, it was clear that Jean lack capacity and was therefore place under the mental capacity act
My colleague and I received an emergency call to reports of a female on the ground. Once on scene an intoxicated male stated that his wife is under investigation for “passing out episodes”. She was lying supine on the kitchen floor and did not respond to A.V.P.U. I measured and inserted a nasopharyngeal airway which was initially accepted by my patient. She then regained consciousness and stated, “Oh it’s happened again has it?” I removed the airway and asked my colleague to complete base line observations and ECG which were all within the normal range. During history taking my patient stated that she did not wish to travel to hospital. However each time my patient stood up she collapsed and we would have to intervene to protect her safety and dignity, whilst also trying to ascertain what was going on. During the unresponsive episodes we returned the patient to the stretcher where she spontaneously recovered and refused hospital treatment. I completed my patient report form to reflect the patient's decision and highlighted my concerns. The patient’s intoxicated husband then carried his wife back into the house.
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
Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed consent, the patient must be aware and should be able to give a voluntary consent for the treatment and testing without being coerced, even if coercion is very little. Being coerced into giving consent is not voluntary because others people’s opinions account for part of his decision. Prisoners and the poor population are two areas where coercion is found the most when giving consent. Terminally ill patients also give consent in hope of recovering from their illness. Although the possibilities are slim of having a successful recovery, they proceed with the research with the expectation of having a positive outcome. As stated by Raab, “informed consent process flows naturally from the ‘partnership’ between physician and patient” (Raab). Despite the fact that informed consent is supposed to educate the patients, it is now more of an avoidance of liability for physicians (Raab). Although the physician provides adequate information to his patient, how can he ensure that his patient properly ...
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Queensland Health (2011) states that in the nursing profession, certain principles must be fulfilled in order for informed consent to be considered valid. They state that the patient must be deemed to have the capacity to make a decision about the proposed issue at that specific time, and not be under the influence of any alcohol or drugs. They state that the patient must consent voluntarily and the decision be made free of manipulation or undue influence by family or the nurse. They suggest that the discussion must involve two-way communication between the patient and the nurse and be clear, rational and sensitive to the situation. The nurse must provide the patient with sufficient information about the proposed issue in a language that the patient can clearly comprehend (Queensland Health, 2011). When providing care, both nurses and paramedics must ensure that the patient has adequate knowledge and have a necessary understanding of the procedure, to...
Consent is an issue of concern for all healthcare professional when coming in contact with patients either in a care environment or at their home. Consent must be given voluntary or freely, informed and the individual has the capacity to give or make decisions without fear or fraud (Mental Capacity Act, 2005 cited in NHS choice, 2010). The Mental Capacity Act perceives every adult competent unless proven otherwise as in the case of Freeman V Home Office, a prisoner who was injected by a doctor without consent because of behavioural disorder (Dimond, 2011). Consent serves as an agreement between the nurse and the patient, and allows any examination or treatment to be administered. Nevertheless, consent must be obtained in every occurrence of care as in the case of Mohr V William 1905 (Griffith and Tengrah, 2011), where a surgeon obtain consent to perform a procedure on a patient right ear. The surgeon found defect in the left ear of the patient and repaired it assuming he had obtained consent for both ear. The patient sued him and the court found the surgeon guilty of trespassing. Although there is no legal requirement that states how consent should be given, however, there are various ways a person in care of a nurse may give consent. This could be formal (written) form of consent or implied (oral or gesture) consent. An implied consent may be sufficient for taking observation or examination of patient, while written is more suitable for invasive procedure such as surgical operation (Dimond, 2011).
Medical records and their contents have been an important issue concerning privacy for physicians and their patients. A health care reform bill which passed legislation in 1996 is known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) had a new rule put into place in 2000, which requires health care physicians and insurance providers to put into place new procedures that would guard patient health information ("Patient Privacy and Confidentiality", 2013).
In every nurse's career, he or she will face with legal and ethical dilemmas. One of the professional competencies for nursing states that nurses should "integrate knowledge of ethical and legal aspects of health care and professional values into nursing practice". It is important to know what types of dilemmas nurses may face
As stated in Beauchamp’s article, the autonomy of individuals expressed through informed consent is a fundamental value within this approach. In the case of Mrs. Francois, the surgeon is put in a difficult situation whereby the patient is in a life-threatening position and refuses treatment. If the surgeon takes on a paternalistic approach to treating this patient who appears to be coherent, the surgeon will be disregarding their patients