I will be analyzing Case Study 2.3 from unit two in the study guide. The professional ethics issue in this case that stands out is, “whether the doctor should lie to the family about the father’s ability to give a kidney, and begin a search for a cadaver kidney?” This is an important and controversial question, which will be discussed in this essay. There are two possible answers to this question, “yes” and “no”, which will be examined. In the following essay, I will discuss the possible outcomes to the professional ethic question posed above.
The first possible answer here is “yes”, the doctor should lie to the family and begin looking for a cadaver kidney. One reason the doctor would choose to lie in this case, is because the father asked
…show more content…
Therefore, the doctor must act in the best interest of his patient and no one else. He took a Hippocratic oath “to do no harm”, and denying her the kidney would be causing her harm. Most notably, the primary focus of the oath is caring for and benefiting the sick. By not telling the truth in the doctor-patient relationship in this case will cause serious harm or death to the girl. Furthermore, patient autonomy is compromised because the right of the patient to make decisions is undermined if the doctor decides to lie to his patient. Perhaps the family knowing the father is a candidate, but anxious about the surgery will opt to wait for a cadaver match. However, a decision is one collectively agreed upon by all parties involved, and not left up to the father.
As mentioned earlier, doctors are not bound by an obligation to tell the truth. Nevertheless, not been truthful can take on many forms. Doctors may unintentionally mislead patients by omitting certain information, or indicate a falsehood to a patient. In this case, the latter applies where the doctor willingly would lie to his patient by revealing the father was not a good match. Since the girl’s life is at stake, then not lying to the family is morally necessary to protect her from harm, which is acting according to the principles of
…show more content…
In this case, the most moral and ethical decision is for the truthfulness of the doctor to his patient and her family. This means he must not lie on behalf of the father because of the fear of donating his kidney. Although doctors are not bound by an obligation to tell the truth, the most ethical position to uphold here is to tell the truth to the family. Besides, by disclosing the results to the family the child’s best chance of survival is achieved. If one considers act or rule utilitarianism theory, then one will consider what action will maximize the most happiness. Indeed, telling the truth would maximize the most happiness for all parties involved, even the father in this case, with the survival of his young
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 case of Marguerite M presents an ethical dilemma. Medical ethics play a special role in medicine and is directly concerned with its practice. Its role has continued to evolve as changes develop in
Based on them, we can definitely eliminate options (c) and (d). Option (c) is against the principle of veracity and informed consent because the doctor was lying and hiding the information about the patient’s health that the patient was supposed to know. Option (d) is morally incorrect because the patient is lied to and the surgeon is not penalized. Option (b) does abide by the principle of veracity, but is against rationality because it sets negative example for the community that the doctors can be forgiven for their mistakes. Moreover, it does not abide by stewardship because the surgeon is taking advantage of being a doctor to conceal the truth. Consequently, the morally correct decision would be the option (a) because it abides by the principles of veracity and informed consent as the responsibility of disclosing the truth to the patient is fulfilled. Moreover, considering the rationality and stewardship, it will set an example for all the doctors that incomplete disclosure of information to the patient is unacceptable and the doctors should not take advantage of their importance in the
This case study which is taken from Robert M. Veatch’s Medical Ethics book is about a 5 year old girl, who from the last 3 years, has been suffering from “progressive renal failure” which...
Should a doctor tell the truth directly to the patient regardless of the family’s wishes not to do that? Or in contrast, should the doctor simply tell the truth to the patient prior to his or her family? Ruiping Fan and Benfu Li’s journal article primarily focuses on whether or not a physician should tell truth to the patient. From a personal opinion, patients have the right to know their state of health. To be honest with a patient, despite his or her family's wishes, before telling the family ultimately depends on many things, such as the patient's age, medical conditions and circumstances, and religious beliefs.
Dear colleagues, please note a sensitive case has been brought to us to deliberate on. David, who is a father, has requested to donate his second kidney to his daughter, Renada. What is more, she urgently needs to undergo a kidney transplant. As you know, the matter has gained the attention of the entire country, and it is our duty to ensure that we solve the case with utmost care using the applicable principles of bioethics. Renada’s case is very challenging and sensitive because we have to balance two critical aspects. Either we agree to grant Renada’s father his wish of saving his daughter and possibly harm his health in the process, or we go against the request and save his life and millions of taxpayers’ money that would be used for his dialysis after the operation. I would like to draw your attention to the respect of autonomy as per the principles of bioethics, which lays emphasis on the practice of informed consent. According to the case at hand, David Patterson, who has been sentenced to 12
What ethical decisions should the physician have at that point? Explain and justify your position. What theory and/ or principle did you use as a basis for your rationale?
Dialysis is a pretty expensive procedure and is required to be done regularly. The patients have to follow a strict schedule. Some patients that have to undergo regular dialysis are already very old and most of their other body parts are also not properly working. For example consider a situation in which a patient is in comma and is not responding , and patient is going through regular dialysis cycles, questions may arise that should the patient be given the treatment of dialysis. Not only it is putting burden on the resources and equipment of the hospital but it is also a financial burden on the person and the family of the patient. The dialysis machine could be used for another patient who is young has a lot of responsibilities like supporting the family needs etc, also the money that is spent on the procedure of dialysis for the comma patient that might have been used for someone’s help in the family. This is where we see the ethical dilemma. These are very di...
During the transformation of the medical cosmologies, as the voice of the patients became less important, the doctors or medical investigators started to ignore about moral ethics or social responsibilities. During the era of Laboratory Medicine, doctors and medical investigators treat the sickness based on the particular cell instead of looking the patients’ body system (Jewson, 2009). They focus more on the cell that is related to the sickness and hope that they could discover new things that could help them attract sponsorship. During the implication of Hospital Medicine, medical investigators would disclose their discoveries in order to attract the attention of sponsors, unlike during the era of Bedside Medicine when discoveries were confidential (Jewson, 2009). This action is considered unethical towards the patients. Therefore, in order to prevent unethical behaviour among the doctors, solutions are carried out in modern days. For example, the Graduate Australian Medical School Admission Test (GAMSAT) contains one section that is tested on the reasoning in humanities and social science (GAMSAT, 2014). This is to emphasis on the thinking, logical and plausible reasoning and thus could show the suitability of a person in being a doctor. The Patients’ Right Act established to also ensure that the patients’
The most common areas of clinical practice where truth-telling and deception become an ethical dilemma are critical care, cancer and palliative care, mental health and general nursing practice (Tuckett, 2004). Other areas where it can raise potential ethical concerns are in placebo therapy, disclosure of human immunodeficiency virus and informed consent (Tuckett, 2004). Truth-telling is also an act of exchanging moral agents (patients, relatives, nurses) with their sets of values and norms, which in turn are derived from culture, personal and religious beliefs, and traditions (Dossa, 2010). For this reason, the issue of truth-telling is not only approached differently in the various clinical settings but also in different countries, cultures and religions (Kazdaglis et al., 2010). For example, in the United States of America (USA), England, Canada and Finland, the majority of patients are told of their diagnosis (Kazdaglis et al., 2010). Conversely, in Japan, family members play a major role in the decision of ...
The question arises whether a person’s claim to determine what transpires to their bodies afore and postmortem should be respected. Traditional medical ethics lean toward preserving the rights of the person. This translates into the act of not harvesting organs from the living or deceased unless valid consent has been obtained. The basis of this ethical policy lies in the deontological theories that were established by our philosophical forefathers, such as, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of a potential donor; the doctor, or medical facility is committing an act of ethical betrayal of the donor, the family, the institution of medicine and the law. Thus, the individual rights of the donor must be upheld to the highest ethical degree.
Paul, B., Valapour, M., Bartele, D., Abbott-Penny, A., & Kahn, J. (2004). Ethics of organ transplantation. Retrieved from http://www.ahc.umn.edu/img/assets/26104/Organ_Transplantation.pdf
McGee, Glenn and Arthur L. Caplan. "Medical Ethics." Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997: Microsoft Corporation. CD-ROM.
Patients rely on their physicians and other doctors, patients think or do what the doctor was right. Family doctor broke the minor patient confidentiality, without their permission. Minor patient 's family secret is broken, the patient can choose to stay away treatment.addition medical patient told the doctor, it seems disgusting and disclose sensitive personal information, do not tell their parents, then the doctor should not be counted. Patient doctors in private life and we will not collect information on the condition they use. When a child with your doctor about these issues doctors should not do, when the time the child is in danger, it is to tell the child 's family. Doctors suspect family problems, children at risk, the authorities may be notified. Sometimes they show that abortion is the best for her, and notify the parents may be dangerous. The right to disclose information under the background to avoid disclosure or "special relationship" obtained. "Special relations, including between doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, priest and penitent or confiders, guardians and their communities" ( "Doctor patient confidentiality"). Communication between patient and doctor is very important, usually including a doctor and other professionals work. Sometimes you need counseling and medical advice and family relationship breakdown when a minor patient 's medical crisis. Once the doctor has a duty of confidentiality, they
The writer discusses a situation of the doctor failing to disclose the nature of important medical condition which can jeopardize several of the patient’s family members and puts the doctor at odds with them. The problem is also discussed by Sutrop (2011) who show how protecting the patient’s confidentiality and self- decision capacity has actually caused severe hindrances to the field of scientific development and research.