Patient abandonment is defined as the unilateral withdrawal by a physician from a patient's care without first formally transferring that care to another qualified physician who is acceptable to the patient. Abandonment is not only ethically problematic but also a defining act of unprofessional conduct (Crausman, 2004). Patients must also always have access to services in emergency circumstances. Providers must act in the best interest of the patient and their basic obligation is to do no harm and work for the public’s wellbeing. A physician shall always keep in mind the obligation of preserving human life.
While our hospital's views may conflict with our patients' views and values, we believe every human being has the right to life. However, a patient knows himself or herself best, and through this we respect our competent patients' wishes when concerning their end of life care. Our hospital will respect the decisions of competent patients to refuse treatment without which they will surely die. However, due to the finality of such a decision, we will require that a given patient undergo two psychological evaluations in order to confirm competence beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, our policy aims to assure that decisions of this magnitude are not made in haste.
Furthermore (Harris 2011) have explained that it is very vital to respect patient’s autonomus decision to refuse intervention which is based on the principle of autonomy. Furthermore, in the scenario where the pressure of patient’s autonomy is in line, the argument depends on other moral principles( ).In this says Principle of non-maleficence gives justification. The Principle of non-maleficence says above all do no harm which means not to injure others or harm them ( ). Likewise , the RN and the Paramedics in the scenario had no intention of doing any harm to Elsie rather than saving her life. ( ) suggested that in nursing context the principle of non-maleficence would provide justification for performing any act which unfairly injures or makes a person to suffer which was avoidable.
The doctor needs to have impartiality towards both Ms. A’s happiness and wellbeing. Thus, it would only make sense that he act in a manner that would benefit Ms. A and at the same time make sure that someone is aware of the risks involved in case something happens. The solution therefore, is to tell the husband of all the risks involved so he is aware of what is going on. However, the doctor should merely tell Ms. A that things would go well with the surgery. Many people would disagree with using the above theory because they feel that Ms. A should be able to make an informed decision about her surgery.
First, doctors are not obligated to provide treatments they believe ineffective or harmful to patients. Physicians have an obligation, and have taken an oath, to “first do no harm.” Second, physicians should not just say no to patients they must discuss alternatives. When doctors believe specific treatments are futile, they are still obligated to discuss the option. Patients and their families have the right to be fully informed and deserve explanations why a specific treatment is not beneficial (Kaseman, 2004). Third, physicians must always convey that medical care is never futile.
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 third defining principle of medical ethics is to “do no harm.” This means that even though a treatment may advance the health of a patient and promote their own vitality, if it requires bodily harm, then the practice must not be undergone. Finally, if resources are to become limited, the fourth principle states that the medical process must manifest “justice,” and all patients are to have access to similar care, no preferential treatment may occur. The justice principle also applies to those impacted by the decision made in medical ethics, it views not only the impact on the patient, but also those surrounding the patient, for example family. Medical ethics cases include euthanasia, withdrawing treatment for fear of abuse, assisted suicide and abortion. Specifically, the case of Aja Riggs falls under the moral dilemma questioning the ability of patients to choose to be euthanized.
In the context of euthanasia, helping someone end their suffering may be viewed as doing more good than harm. This is said to be in line with the moral view that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, out of compassion and mercy (Norval and Gwyther, 2003). However, it can be argued that a further step in beneficence is the “duty to prevent harm to others” (Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1987), which falls under the principle of non-maleficence. Thus appropriate and optimal palliative care should be the right approach instead of euthanasia. Euthanasia advocates also set forth an argument based on distributive justice to support active voluntary euthanasia.
Commitment to honesty with patients is another essential role of all physicians. Physicians must make sure that patients are completely and honestly informed before the treatment and after it has occurred. This means that patients should not be involved in every minute decisions regarding their medical care, but be supported to decide on the course of therapy. Whenever patients are injured as a result of medical care, patients should be notified rapidly, because failure to report this could seriously compromise patient and societal trust. Reporting and analyzing medical mal-practice provides the basis for appropriate prevention and improveme... ... middle of paper ... .... For example, physicians who specialize in cardiology will see an increased rate in job opportunities.
In the medical field, there are many ethical dilemmas that a person could face. One of the major dilemmas in the medical field comes from being a doctor. While attending to a patient/ client the doctor may not know the best treatment or course of action to take because of the many options there could be. The values and beliefs of a doctor can’t interfere with the treatment of a patient/client. Their job is to be honest, benevolent, respectful, and to maintain confidentiality of the patient/client.