Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Case Study

As defined by Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, and McGeehan, the health care formulation of the principle of autonomy states that “you shall not treat a patient without the informed consent of the patient or his or her lawful surrogate, except in narrowly defined emergencies” (Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.32). An abdominal aortic aneurysm is a very high-risk diagnosis, but is non-emergent unless the aortic wall ruptures. It may seem that the patient is assuming very illogical and risky behavior, but it is still her right as a patient to deny the surgery if she so chooses. Unfortunately, the physician’s actions cannot be justified in this case because although the diagnosis was an acute one, it was not yet emergent. The surgeon

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,