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.
While Goldman’s argument provides excellent moral reasoning from a patient’s standpoint of view, it fails to fully detail the reasoning of paternalism from a medical professional’s standpoint. I agree that patient autonomy should be a priority and respected by medical professionals, but there are many cases that patients are not always able to make autonomous decisions. Conflict occurs for medical professionals when a state of equipoise in effect. Usually there is a question of what is best for the patient and whether or not to respect a patient’s autonomy. Is the patient fully aware of their condition and the risks of procedures?
In our society we have laws, rules and principles that assure a level of moral conduct to physicians who plan to go through with this type of action. However, these few rules that give an idea of what a physician should do when it comes to certain scenarios is not sufficient in providing what to do in complex and unpredictable circumstances of decision making. It is understandable that “when the choice of a right and good action becomes more difficult, when the temptations to self-interest are more insistent” (72). Professional codes must be more explicit about the relationships between duties, rights, and virtues; a more honest relationship between physicians and
I steer towards a kantian point of view because i believe a physician needs to be completely loyal to their patients and should not put their health in jeopardy. Randomized clinical trials have benefited medicine but they are a common place of corruption, by the exploitation of patients the medical industry can easily do more harm than good. Randomized clinical trials are a very broad idea therefore choosing to be for or against it is very difficult. Overall the kantian theory is what i personally thinks is the best way have a patient-physician relationship.
A practice commonly used in the medical field, “benevolent deception” is the act of physicians suppressing information about diagnoses in hopes of not causing patients emotional turmoil (Skloot 63). Benevolent deception is a contentious subject because when used, the bioethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence can conflict with each other. Respect for autonomy is the act of physicians acknowledging their patients’ abilities to make voluntary decisions on their own regarding their health care, while beneficence is the duty of doctors to help patients and remove harm from them (McCormick 4-5) When giving patients diagnoses, physicians are morally obliged to try to follow these doctrines, which is why some may mistakenly use benevolent deception because of how it honors the principle of beneficence. Due to the assumption that patients would not want to hear devastating news relating to their health, benevolent deception is deliberately used by numerous medical doctors in attempts to not cause emotional harm to a patient (Higgs 8). However, in most medical situations, benevolent deception is not permissible because the patients’ given right to autonomy is disrespected by doctors.
They ought to practice medication painstakingly and honestly and, when beneficence is unthinkable, they ought to still attempt to minimize hurts. Restrictions on premature birth and killing doubtlessly come from this worry; 3. Honor: doctors ought to act decently. They ought to approach their patients with deference, and ought not enter into questionable relations with them; and 4. Confidentiality: doctors ought to support the confidences of their patients and not reveal data unnecessarily.
The nurse here will face the dilemma of telling the patient the truth or lying. In this situation, I prefer the medical team tells the true to the patent even though it is painful for the patent to know about it. By doing this, we are not only respect the patient’s right but also increase the patient’s compliance to the treatment because we acquire the patient’s trust. Knowing how to best resolve difficult moral and ethical dilemmas is never easy. In the moments of facing a dilemma, it is crucial to apply rational thinking to find the best course of actions in practice.
Privacy protections for medical records present a regulatory nightmare. Medical records are critical to quality care since they give a doctor a patient's history; they are key to preventing dangerous drug interactions, complications from allergies, and harmful drug side effects. Medical records also play a key role in medical and health system research. The information in a patient's medical records, however, can be used for much more insidious purposes; denial of medical care, denial of employment, character assassination, and extortion are all consequences of medical information falling into the wrong hands. The difficulty of balancing these needs has resulted in a thin patchwork of regulatory protection of medical information; as one commentator has noted, federal law protects video rental records more thoroughly and completely than medical records.
Euthanasia should not be accepted as part of the standard way of dying because it not only contradicts the most respected moral principle of ‘thou shalt not kill’, but also good medical practice. The four principles of biomedical ethics can be used as a framework to help guide moral decision-making in difficult situations including euthanasia. Arguments against the moral permissibility of euthanasia which are based on respecting autonomy and non-maleficence outweigh those related to beneficence and justice. In any case of euthanasia, careful evaluation of the interests of the various parties involved is crucial because ethical principles can be contentious at times and their meanings could be interpreted differently from theory to theory (Robison
I feel that they do not understand that they, too, should be complying with PPE. Health care providers often have a negative view on PPE because it can often impair the ability to work, for example palpating a vein for an IV insertion. Despite the negativity revolving around proper PPE, there are also positive attitudes about complying. When wearing the proper PPE, it allows health care providers to do their jobs while protecting themselves and the patient. Since health care providers go to different rooms throughout their shifts, it ultimately prevents exposing others to infectious diseases, which can prevent future infection and save lives.