More handpicked essays just for you.
The tuskegee experiment ethical issues
Personal reflection on medical ethics
Personal reflection on medical ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The purpose f this paper is to answer the following question- where does patient autonomy leave off and professional expertise begin in the practice of medicine? Also, a brief personal analysis about the differences between doctors encouraging patients to question their judgment and doctors who believe that such deference is “pandering.”
There are many ethical dilemmas in the medical field, especially when it is related to patient’s autonomy; an example to this is euthanasia. Many patients prefer to go over this procedure before continuing suffering from a terminal illness. However, many people to this day believe that this is an unethical practice to perform.
Anyhow, this particular topic reminded me of the Tuskegee experiments performed
…show more content…
An example to this would be a patient arriving to the emergency department, unconscious, and without identification. Furthermore, this patient needs immediate surgery in order to save his/her life, what to do? This is the perfect scenario to depict when professional expertise begins. The physician’s morality/autonomy kicks in, and makes the decision for this particular patient to save his/her life by performing surgery. Otherwise, if the patient was alert and declined surgery, there was the end of it, as it is against the law to force a patient to take medications or accept treatments. However, patients who suffer from mental illness do not have much autonomy to decide for their treatments. In cases like this, the physicians and nurses take charge over the …show more content…
Especially after the many years that these people have to attend school. Therefore, I think that this might be one of the reasons for physicians to feel frustrated about situations like this, as they are trained to have the necessary confidence to make the “right” decisions/diagnosis/recommendations. In my opinion, I think that their autonomy as a physician is being neglected. However, times have change and there is no way a physician is going to force a cancer patient to go through chemotherapy if the patient refuses to do so; there is always a consent to sign. This is why I previously mention that many ethical dilemmas currently exist in the medical field. Not to mention that some nurses want to become physicians as well (nurse practitioners), but unfortunately their education (in years and practice) does not compare to the physicians; therefore, this can also lead to encouraging patients to question health care provider’s
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
For anyone who has ever worked in healthcare, or simply for someone who has watched a popular hit television show such as Grey’s Anatomy, General Hospital, House or ER know that there can be times when a doctor or health care provider is placed in extremely difficult situations. Often times, those situations are something that we watch from the sidelines and hope for the best in the patient’s interest. However, what happens when you place yourself inside the doctors, nurses, or any other of the medical provider’s shoes? What if you were placed in charge of a patient who had an ethically challenging situation? What you would you do then? That is precisely what Lisa Belkin accomplishes in her book “First Do No Harm”. Belkin takes the reader on
According to Terrence F. Ackerman, as of the 1980s the American Medical Association had to include the respect for a person’s autonomy as a principle of medical ethics (Ackerman 14, 1982). This includes having the physician provide all the medical information to the patient even if the information could cause negative implication onto the patient. The physician is also expected to withhold all information of the patient from 3rd parties (Ackerman 14, 1982). Although it is seen as standard in today’s world, in
Euthanasia has been a long debated subject consisting of many opinions and believes. For this paper I will be providing my rationale on why I am for legalization of active voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill clients in Canada. Active voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because it respects the individual’s choice, it allows individuals to flourish in their passing, and reduces the individual from further suffering. These are all important components of bioethics, and are all good reasons why euthanasia is not a negative thing. Active voluntary euthanasia is “the active killing of a dying person” requested by the client themselves (Collier & Haliburton, 2011, p. 226). In the paper I will also be discussing about virtue ethics, the principle of autonomy, and care ethics.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
When patients suffering from serious health conditions are towards the end of their lives, they are given an option that can change their lives and the lives of those around them. This option is praised as an act of preserving dignity, but also condemned as an act of weakness. The terminally ill, as well as the disabled and the elderly, are given the choice to end their lives by the method of suicide involving the assistance of a physician. For several years, this method has been under debate on whether this option is ethical or unethical. Not only is this defective option unethical, but it puts ill and elderly patients under pressures that can lead to them choosing this alternative rather than the fighting for their lives.
There are questions about transplant allocation in regards to the four major ethical principles in medical ethics: beneficence, autonomy, nonmaleficence and justice. Beneficence is the “obligation of healthcare providers to help people” that are in need, autonomy is the “right of patients to make choices” in regards to their healthcare, nonmaleficence, is the “duty of the healthcare providers to do no harm”, and justice is the “concept of treating everyone in a fair manner” ("Medical Ethics & the Rationing of Health Care: Introduction", n.d., p. 1).
An ethical dilemma is defined as a mental state when the nurse has to make a choice between the options and choices that he or she has at her disposal. The choice is a crucial task as the opting of the step will subsequently determine the health status of the concerned patient, hence it requires a great deal of wisdom along with proper medical and health training before any such step is opted as it is a matter of life and death. Strong emphasis should therefore be on the acquisition of proper knowledge and skills so that nurses do posses the autonomy to interact with patients regarding ethical issues involved in health care affairs and address them efficiently. It is normally argued that nurses are not provided sufficient authority to consult and address their patients on a more communicative or interactive level as a result of which they are often trapped in predicaments where their treatments of action and their personal beliefs create a conflict with the health interests of the patient. (Timby, 2008)
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
Because passive euthanasia is accepted by the American Medical Association in cases where it is clear the patient has no reasonable hope of living without the aid of a machine, passive euthanasia is not as controversial as active euthanasia. This paper will focus on the controversial morality issues regarding active voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the ending of a persons life by lethal injection with or without the patients consent. Unless oth...