Doctors are well respected within the realm of American society and are perceived with the highest regard as a profession. According to Gallup’s Honesty and Ethics in Profession polls, 67% of respondents believe that “the honesty and ethical standards” of medical doctors were “very high.” Furthermore, 88% of respondents polled by Harris Polls considered doctors to either “hold some” or a “great deal of prestige”. Consequently, these overwhelmingly positive views of the medical profession insinuate a myth of infallibility that envelops the physicians and the science they practice. Atul Gawande, in Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science, provides an extensive view of the medical profession from both sides of the operating table …show more content…
In his encounter with a young boy, Lee Tran, who suffered from a tumor compressing his airway which obstructed his ability to breathe, Gawande discusses the sheer luck that resulted in Lee’s “tumor [shifting] rightward, [allowing] airways to both lungs to open up,” as the conflicted doctors did not pursue the safest course of treatment (Gawande 6). This anecdote validates the fact that often doctors cannot foresee the optimal course of action through the smoke of crisis and relied on essentially random chance to save the young boy’s life. Gawande sums up this experience as he admits that while there is science in the profession, there also exists “habit, intuition, and sometimes plain old guessing” (Gawande 7) - rendering the science imperfect. These qualities - habit, intuition, and “plain old guessing” are not empirical qualities proven through the scientific method but rather unquantifiable, refuting the stereotypes conferred by the myth of an infallible science and revealing the medicine is ultimately a human …show more content…
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
The one example of this that I found most relevant in the book is the situation of Armando. Armando was shot and the bullet lodged in the spinal canal. It caused enough damage to make him a paraplegic, but not enough to kill him. The ethics committee had decided that it was best to encompass a DNR because he had no health insurance, and his quality of life was not what it was before. When the doctors went to approve this with Armando, he denied the DNR and said that he wanted what ever was necessary to be done to him to save his life (Belkin p. 58-59). This made Cindy worried for the cost of keeping him alive was substantial. All the doctors and caretakers believed that he should be placed under DNR, however that was not what Armando wanted. The doctors believed that was the wrong decision. This correlates to what the quote was from the book on page 70; doctors can tend to be narrow-minded when it comes to the care of a patient. They believe that their course of action is the best and do not agree if the patient wants something different. This I have found is also true in my own personal experience with doctors. For example, when I was about 17 my wisdom teeth were growing in. I was in terrible pan from two of my wisdom teeth being impacted. My
People trust doctors to save lives. Everyday millions of Americans swallow pills prescribed by doctors to alleviate painful symptoms of conditions they may have. Others entrust their lives to doctors, with full trust that the doctors have the patient’s best interests in mind. In cases such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, the Crownsville Hospital of the Negro Insane, and Joseph Mengele’s Research, doctors did not take care of the patients but instead focused on their self-interest. Rebecca Skloot, in her contemporary nonfiction novel The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, uses logos to reveal corruption in the medical field in order to protect individuals in the future.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a Harvard Medical School graduate and writer for The New Yorker, phenomenally illustrates the unknown side of healthcare professions in his book, Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science. By exploring the ethical and analytical aspects of medicine while entertaining readers with relatable anecdotes, Gawande impresses on his audience the importance of recognizing the wonders of the healthcare field, as well as the fallibility of those within it.
Twenty four centuries ago, Hippocrates created the profession of medicine, for the first time in human history separating and refining the art of healing from primitive superstitions and religious rituals. His famous Oath forged medicine into what the Greeks called a technik, a craft requiring the entire person of the craftsman, an art that, according to Socrates in his dialogue Gorgias, involved virtue in the soul and spirit as well as the hands and brain. Yet Hippocrates made medicine more than a craft; he infused it with an intrinsic moral quality, creating a “union of medical skill and the integrity of the person [physician]” (Cameron, 2001).
In the essay “When Doctors Make Mistakes” written by Atul Gawande, he writes a first-hand account of mistakes made by himself and his colleagues. The essay is divided into five parts, each named to the narrative and emotions of the story he would tell. In each story he tells, he uses such vivid language that we as readers feel as if we are one of his colleagues. Each section has its own importance to the whole point he was trying to get across, ““All doctors make terrible mistakes” (657).
For countless years there has always been an urgent need for doctors. Different methods would be used to cure people from their sicknesses. However, life is given by God and it is he who can take it away. Doctors play the role of saving lives, but in the end, they are powerless because nature has to take its course leaving humanity at its limits. In Vincent Lams novel “Bloodletting and Miraculous Cures”, Lam challenges the myth that doctors are omnipotent by contending that “medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability”. Using Fitzgerald as a focal point, Lam debunks the myth that doctors are omnipotent through situations of medical failure, having a loss of power and control and by inhabiting deadly diseases. By showings his mistakes, Lam proves that Fitz is not perfect and God like.
There are many ethical issues that arise in the Karen Ann Quinlan case. First, there is the ethical right that each person has to receive or refuse medical treatment. But this can ethically problematic because some would see death as an intrinsic evil; therefore choosing death would be unethical. This, however, can be categorized as part of the larger issue of patient autonomy, the patient's right to live and abide by their own personal choices (Garrett 29). Recent thought has affirmed the idea of patient autonomy in medicine, now making it a central dogma of the American medical practice. In this case, patient autonomy is threatened because the patient is not able to communicate their desires for treatment. The physician cannot ask, and therefore cannot know, if the patient would want to continue treatment or withdraw treatment. In this case, the Karen was deemed incompetent...
By ruling in the favor of Mr. Quinlan, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed for patient autonomy to be exercised by an incompetent patient. Though the legal implications of this decision vary from state to state, medical ethics now had to incorporate the possible refusal of a once competent patient unable to give that refusal. This concept is not one that was totally unexpected by the medical community. By developing machinery capable of sustaining life even in the case of severe deficit, it is only natural that medical ethics would need to adapt, growing to accommodate this new realm of consideration. Just as a competent person has the right to decide “how much to struggle, how much to suffer, how much bodily invasion to tolerate, and...
In this chapter Dr. Thomas Percival is introduced. Percival first debuted the term “medical ethics.” Percival himself was an advocate of the classical decorum. He believed in the importance of the truth and emphasized sympathy, equality and patience. Chapters six and seven illustrates medical ethics in America. American doctors in this time were either self-taught or apprenticeship-trained. During these chapters the development of proper schools and education were initiated by the American Medical Association. In addition, the first anesthesia was introduced and debates soon began to spark in the world of medicine. The first concerning the unethical practice of inoculation. Then the discussion of abortion and later the use of anesthesia. Yet, in the very last chapter, Jonsen introduces a series of events which radically transformed the field of
When one initially chooses a career path, one rarely looks at all the negatives that may be associated with that choice. Most career paths have some negatives associated with the field, but few face the moral dilemmas associated with modern healthcare. Those who choose to be in the healthcare profession today are faced with moral and ethical dilemmas that would make King Solomon tear his hair out. In many cases, doctors, and sometimes nurses, are faced with life and death decisions without the benefit of knowing the patient’s, or the patient’s family’s, wishes. However, aside from those tragic times when a patient’s wishes are unknown, healthcare professionals must always put their own morals aside, and act
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
In Lee Ann Fisher Baron’s “Junk Science,” she claims that the “food industry with the help of federal regulators” sometimes use “[a science that] bypasses [the] system of peer review. Presented directly to the public by…‘experts’ or ‘activists,’ often with little or no supporting evidence, this ‘junk science’ undermines the ability…[for] everyday consumers to make rational decisions” (921). Yet Americans still have a lot of faith in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to a 2013 Pew Research study, 65% of Americans are “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” of the FDA. When it comes to what people put in their bodies, the FDA has a moral obligation to be truthful and transparent. The bottom line of the FDA’s myriad of responsibilities is to help protect the health of Americans. Deciding what to eat is a critical part of living healthily, and consumers must be able to trust that this massive government agency is informing them properly of the contents of food. While the FDA does an excellent job in many areas, it has flaws in other areas. One of its flaws is allowing the food industry to print food labels that are deceptive, unclear, or simply not true (known as misbranding). This is quite the hot topic because a Google search for “Should I trust food labels” returns well over 20 million results, many of which are blog posts from online writers begging their readers not to trust food labels. HowStuffWorks, a division of Discovery Communications, published an online article whose author claims that “[the food industry] will put what they want on labels. They know the game….” While the food industry is partially at blame for misbranding, the FDA is allowing it to happen. If a mother tells her children that it is oka...
In this book, a collection of ten stories about the medicine drama in real life are presented. The stories are filled with extremely agonizing decisions that patients and their family members confront. In contrast to the wooden and rigid cases found in text-book scenarios representing the literature of medical ethics, the individuals who are involved in these crucial moments of ethically charged decisions come to life. The characters and the settings they encounter are enriched and vivid. These compelling stories bring up ethical issues that range from parents faced with donating the organs of their daughter, who had traumatic brain damage; to a young woman's decision to refuse her last therapy (Munson, 2009).
First, let’s consider the reasoning behind the patients choosing to forego extraordinary treatment for their cancer. They have decided, as Beauchamp would put it, that refusing to prolong their lives in the face of pain and suffering “neither harms nor wrongs [them] and may provide a benefit” (Beauchamp, 76). They “intend to quit life because of its bleak possibilities” (Beauchamp, 77). The doctor readily complies with their wishes out of moral, legal, and professional obligation. A choice has been made to let both patients die, as a response to their “competent and authoritative refusal of treatment” (Beauchamp 74).
To sum up, the book reminds us of the complexity and paradox of the medical profession: the limits of a medical culture that is excessively focused on curing disease and has lost sight of its equally important role in helping patients confronting death with dignity. What physicians can really do beyond cure is to open up and confront their own fears and doubts, and willing to prepare their patients for the "final exam" (Chen, 2007). Those with a career of caring for the ill have to continually confront their own human limitations if they are ever to become the type of doctors people value.