Dr. Graham should have informed Mr. Villalobos about the severity of his health conditions; Dr. Graham also should have informed Mr. Villalobos about all of the possible treatments available. Mr. Villalobos has right to know about his own health conditions and should allowed to make his own decisions regarding his treatment plan. According, to the Ethics case study Dr. Graham did not inform Mr. Villalobos about the state of his medical condition and did not tell Mr. Villalobos about all of his options for treatment. According to Physician-Patient Speech: An Analysis of The State of Patient’s First Amendment Rights to Receive Accurate Medical Advice (2015)” The physician-patient relationship holds, and has held for a long time, a very important …show more content…
Villalobos was not even allowed time to ask Dr. Graham further questions regarding his health issues. Dr. Graham did not even advocate for Mr. Villalobos. If Dr. Graham advocated for Mr. Villalobos he may he been able to receive healthcare through charity. According to The Ethics of Advocacy for Undocumented Patients (2013),” clinicians allocate their own time, for example, to help a patient secure charity care from a hospital or a private organization—a clinician’s own emotions and value judgments may inform her response to a situation.” The outcome for Mr. Villalobos may have been different if Dr. Graham at least tried to convince the hospital to still provide him more patient care. It is a doctor’s ethical duty to at least try to advocate for their patients. According to Emtala’s Impact on Patient's Rights In Colorado Emergency Rooms (2018),”Congress enacted EMTALA in 1986 to crack down on emergency departments that were refusing to treat poor patients. The Act prohibited EDs from screening patients based on their ability to pay, but has since been expanded to generally prohibit EDs from delaying or discouraging patients from seeking treatment.” Dr. Graham prohibited Mr. Villalobos from seeking treatment because he delayed his
Truth in medicine is a big discussion among many medical professionals about how doctors handle the truth. Truth to a patient can be presented in many ways and different doctors have different ways of handling it. Many often believe that patient’s being fully aware of their health; such as a bad diagnosis, could lead to depression compared to not knowing the diagnosis. In today’s society doctor’s are expected to deliver patient’s the whole truth in order for patients to actively make their own health decisions. Shelly K. Schwartz discusses the truth in her essay, Is It Ever Ok to Lie to Patients?. Schwartz argument is that patients should be told the truth about their health and presented and addressed in a way most comfortable to the patient.
One of the most complex, ever-changing careers is the medical field. Physicians are not only faced with medical challenges, but also with ethical ones. In “Respect for Patients, Physicians, and the Truth”, by Susan Cullen and Margaret Klein, they discuss to great extent the complicated dilemmas physicians encounter during their practice. In their publication, Cullen and Klein discuss the pros and cons of disclosing the medical diagnosis (identifying the nature or cause of the disease), and the prognosis (the end result after treating the condition). But this subject is not easily regulated nor are there guidelines to follow. One example that clearly illustrates the ambiguity of the subject is when a patient is diagnosed with a serious, life-threatening
The nurse should not inform the patient of her leukemia. The nurse has not been observing the patient long enough to use her assumption that the patient is mentally sound as a means to justify telling the patient stressful information. The nurse ought to follow the physicians instruction to refrain from giving the patient news about their chronic lymphocytic leukemia. This resolution follows with my own moral intuitions. If someone is not in a healthy mental state, it would not be morally permissible to provide information to that person which could cause their mental state to worsen. Although in most cases it is obligatory for a moral agent to always tell the whole truth in accordance with the prima facie principle of honesty, the principle of beneficence in moral situations similar to this one overrides the principle of honesty. One’s own health and well-being is more important than answering their questions to the fullest knowledge
Ms. Hernandez claimed that she undergoes chronic back pain to her lower back which inhibits her to move around as quickly as she finds it difficult and painful to get up from a seated position with the use of her cane or a walker. It is difficult for her to sit for more than 15 minutes at a time, without experiencing pain and the discomfort to her lower back as she would have to get up from her sitting position and lay down on her bed to stretch-out her back to allow the discomfort to her back to diminish. Because of her previous back injury, she finds it difficult to carry, lift, bend, twist at the waist while she cannot hold anything more significant than 10 pounds. She must frequently rest after she does any menial chores in her apartment. Even though that the complex where she lives cleans her apartment once a week she will find it
At first glance, this case might appear to be ethically sound and the conduct of Dr. Fox was that of a normal Western doctor. However, upon further analysis a large number of issues arise. The debate over whether to inform Leyla about her diagnosis in the above case arises from the conflicting cultural norms between Leyla’s family and the attending physician. One of the main ethical questions is: was it necessary for Dr. Fox to disregard the family’s wishes, religion and cultural norms. By refusing to wait for Mr. Ansari to pray, insisting on telling Leyla himself and interrupting Mrs. Ansari’s prayer, Dr. Fox was insensitive to the patient and family’s religious and cultural needs. Furthermore, insisting on telling Leyla himself, even though he noticed that she was stressed and her family informed him that she was too vulnerable at the time to handle her diagnosis, brings up issues of competence. There is also the issue of informed consent and confidentiality when Dr. Fox employs the friend as a translator without her or Leyla’s authorization. In addition, instead of providing options in the prognosis, Dr. Fox gives a recommendation and does not discuss any other possible prognoses.
Providers must act in the best interest of the patient and their basic obligation is to do no harm and work for the public’s wellbeing. A physician shall always keep in mind the obligation of preserving human life. Providers must communicate full, accurate and unbiased information so patients can make informed decisions about their health care. As a result of their recommendations, providers are responsible for generating costs in health care but do not generate the need for those expenses. Every hospital has both an ethical as well as a legal responsibility to provide care, even if the care may be uncompensated.
In conclusion, doctors have a moral obligation to tell patients the truth about their illnesses, unless the patient clearly states that he or she does not want to know. Medicine is a field that works to treat the patient. This means that physicians are there for guidance, using expertise and years of education to guide them to a cure. This does not mean that a physician should make decisions about the patients without proper consent. Believing that patients will misunderstand the diagnosis, or assuming that they won’t want to know are not valid reasons for keeping information from the person. Communication is important in a medical setting, and is especially important when talking about the health of an individual. With relevant, appropriate and humanistic communication, telling a patient their diagnosis can and should be done in a caring way.
Paramedics deemed the patient competent and therefore Ms. Walker had the right to refuse treatment, which held paramedics legally and ethically bound to her decisions. Although negligent actions were identified which may have resulted in a substandard patient treatment, paramedics acted with intent to better the patient despite unforeseen future factors. There is no set structure paramedics can follow in an ethical and legal standpoint thus paramedics must tailor them to every given
Physician’s worry that a diagnosis of a terminal disease may push a patient into depression or provoke suicide. This voluntary withholding is sometimes called the ‘therapeutic privilege.’ It may also happen that withholding information may work to disrupt the trust between patients and physicians. A physician that withholds information from a patient, even for humanitarian reasons, puts themselves at risk of malpractice suits, even if that information is necessary so that patients can make an informed decision about their medical treatment (Topic : Truth telling).
The prudent person rule tells the physician to disclose the information necessary towards making a decision to accept or deny treatment. This includes describing her diagnoses, the nature and purpose of their proposed surgery, evaluating with the patient the risks and consequences associated with their decision to refuse surgery, proposing the benefits to be expected if the procedure goes successfully, and if applicable to this situation, a valid prognosis if the surgery is still refused as well as the possible long-term costs associated with refusing treatment. The development of a relationship with the patient, although time is of the essence, comes with applying the subjective substantial disclosure rule, which tells the physician to “describe to the patient everything that would be material or important to the particular patient and not merely to a fictional reasonable and prudent person who makes the decision” (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009,
However, there is no law stating that the physician has to reveal this to the patient. The justification on this point is that it is not like no one knows the severity of the patient’s situation. Since the family is cognizant of the condition, it allows them to make important decisions that will most benefit the patient. Noticeably, another reason that Fan and Lin points out is that, “an overwhelming majority of patients understand and accept the physician’s keeping information from the patient (p. 70).” Conclusively, there appears to be a mutual understanding from the physician’s side and the patient’s position concerning
Disclosure of pertinent medical facts and alternative course of treatment should not be overlooked by the physician in the decision making process. This is very important information impacting whether that patient will go along with the recommended treatment. The right to informed consent did not become a judicial issue ...
One could view disclosing the extent of the patient’s health to someone other than the patient as an invasion of privacy. In accordance with that notion, patients should have the right to do what they wish, without worrying about the physician compromising their wishes. If the physician discovers something abnormal, the patient should be the first to be notified about their medical conditions and given the choice whether to disclose it. Many significant decisions are needed to be made throughout the course of the treatments. Lack of communication or conflicting views may prompt the family to make wrong decisions that opposes the patient’s desires. Moreover, as the disease progresses, the patient will eventually have somewhat of an inclination of what is taking place in the body regardless of the non-disclosures. Conclusively, there are both beneficial and negative features of Fan’s and Lin’s argument. Concocting an intermediate between Western medical practices and traditional Chinese practices can prove to be challenging due to the blatant
The specific issue in questions is whether a nurse should keep the truth from their patient about their illness by respecting the wishes of the patient family or abiding by The Code of Ethics for Nurses and revealing the truth to the patient. The Code of Ethics for Nurses expresses the values and ethics of the nursing profession by stating that: Patients have the moral and legal right to determine what will be done with their own person; to be given accurate, complete, and understandable information in a manner that facilitates an informed judgment; to be assisted with weighing the benefits, burdens, and available options in their treatment, including the choice of no treatment; to accept, refuse, or terminate treatment without deceit, undue influence, pressure, intimidation, or penalty; and to be given necessary support throughout the decision-making and treatment process (The American Nurses Association, 2011). Unfortunately, truth telling to any type of patient is a common ethical dilemma: to tell the truth or to not tell the truth is the main question. Nurses have the closet relationship with patients and therefore are the ones put in a difficulty situation between their patient and the patient’s family. Who should they satisfy? Should they leave their patient in the
The American Medical Association (AMA) developed a Code of Medical Ethics which includes: the patient has a right to obtain and discuss health information related to benefits, risks, and costs of treatment alternatives; patient’s can make decisions pertaining to healthcare suggested by the physician; the patient has the right to courtesy, respect, dignity, and attention to healthcare needs in a timely manner; and the patient has a right to confidentially, continuity, and adequate health care. (emedicinehealth, 2011). Communicating openly and honestly between the patient and doctor will allow both parties to make decisions to properly take care of needs.