Lying is a quick fix. It may work on a case-to-case basis, but health care reform is the only permanent solution. While we can condemn doctors for being untruthful, we also have to look at the flip side -- HMO's and other insurance companies who are trying to cut back costs, approving the least expensive treatments and sometimes denying those claims that have real merit. These companies do breed an environment where it is difficult for doctors to be completely honest. Doctors are supposed to be looking after the interests of their patients, and they sometimes see lying as the only way to skirt the policies of some HMO's.
Patients should be given this information because medicine is patient-centered, communication is necessary to build trust in a patient-doctor relationship, and withholding the truth seems to be more harmful to the patient in the long run. One crucial point that Lipkin fails to recognize is that medicine is patient-centered. Even though medicine has changed via technological advances, healthcare coverage, and ethics, one thing has remained constant – medicine provides care for the patient. More than that, medicine (especially primary care) emphasizes treating the patient as a person, not a diagnosis. In the story Being Mickey’s Doctor, the pediatrician who treats ten-year-old Mickey learns valuable lessons about being humanistic and compassionate.
Past physicians carried a certain authority over the treatment given to patients, however, due to medical progressivism, patients are given more rights to determine the treatments they can accept. Although these steps are certainly in the right direction, there has been a certain ethical dilemma as many doctors are forced to accept patient demands even when it is not the best course of action (Gawande 216). It is easy for us to affirm certain platitudes about patient interests being first in healthcare, but it is also important to investigate the specific nuances of patient care. In many situations, the patient truly is not well versed enough to make decisions about their care (227). While sometimes patients may truly be thankful for a physician’s intervention, any autonomous decision by physicians creates a dangerous precedent for doctor intervention in patient care.
When all facts are taken into consideration, the side of illegalizing physician-assisted suicide prospers as the correct choice. Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal because it ensures that patients are not being pressured to die, and it keeps doctors from breaking their Hippocratic Oath. Also, those that are for physician-assisted suicide falsely use the concept of dignity. Frequently, when a patient is in intensive care or has some sort of deadly disease, they require a lot of medical attention. However, they also require an equal amount of attention and support from their family and friends.
Patient’s choice to enter the hospital voluntarily or, alternatively, to refuse admission is of pivotal importance. Due to violation of integrity, self-determination and autonomy, client suffers from low satisfaction and legal disabilities. But on the other hand, treatment implied by coercion improves the outcome compared to the outcome with no (coercive) intervention. The underlying belief is that patients with drug abuse and mental disorders are unable to understand their needs of treatment, thus justifying paternalism as a well-intended interference with a person’s liberty of action (Høyer, Kjellin, Engberg, Kaltiala-Heino, Nilstun, Sigurjonsdottir & Syse, 2002). This paper will discuss the case scenario, some ethical principles, different constraints, possible solutions and evaluating those solutions according to ethical concepts and principles.
To most of society, medical errors reflect poorly on a doctor. Many accuse the physician of being negligent and incompetent in the event of a medical error, but the truth is they are simply human. The stigmatization of medical errors is a result of the high, almost god-like, expectations society has placed upon physicians. In his book Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science, Dr. Atul Gawande highlights several reasons doctors have trouble admitting their medical mistakes and why they shouldn’t. There are several reasons physicians fail to admit their mistakes, most of them revolve around their career reputations.
For example if someone was unconscious for a surgery a doctor could rape the patient and argue that it is not wrong because the person was unconscious and will never know, but to most this would be wrong and without codes of ethics this doctor could not be punished. This shows that codes of ethics are very important, especially when it comes to public
Doctor is considered as great people who are able to use their skills to care for patients; nonetheless, they can deviate from the good and become bad as well. In response to this malpractice, laws are there to protect patients from being harmed by the practice of a doctor. Giving the advantage of suing the doctor for malpractice creates a functioning barrier that affects the performance of a doctor. Malpractice laws create fear in the physician that it hinders them from performing in their maximum capacity. Although malpractice laws exist to protect the patient and perfect the medical practice of a doctor, it leads the doctors to practice defensive medicine.
Brock argues for the use of euthanasia in his essay defending the implementation of euthanasia in medicine. One chief concern those against euthanasia have is that it will undermine the trust patients place in the hands of medical professionals. However, according to brock patients will not fear their doctors because they participate in euthanasia, but rather trust and appreciate their doctor even more (Brock pg.77). This is because those doctors know have a new tool to add to their repertoire. No healthcare provider would utilize physician assisted suicide or euthanasia without the consent of the patient and they all know this.
(Smith 153) Many doctors today are willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors are supposed to adhere to because they are in agreement with the utilitarian bioethicists. I must be in the minority because I refuse to "jump on the bandwagon" of that inhumane type of bioethics. I believe that this kind of ethics is dangerous, dehumanizing, and very unethical. Nobody has the right to decide whose life is more important than others or whose life contributes more to society. Many people with disabilities are able to function very well and greatly contribute to society.