There various scenarios where patients would probably want a second opinion from another physician. A common experience among healthy individuals who go for a routine executive check-up is that of being told that something turned up in their laboratory results, which needs to be evaluated further. These people often have no symptoms and are not ready to hear any bad news regarding their health. But then they are asked to undergo another test, which leads them to see a specialist who subsequently recommends a procedure, such as cardiac catheterization, that will prevent a future catastrophe, such as a heart attack. Shocked with such a proposition, the patient naturally wants to be sure if he really needs the procedure done, considering that he never even thought he was sick.
Another scenario is that of a sick patient who would rather hear from another expert that the dreaded diagnosis is probably flawed or that a more conservative form of treatment will make him get better, even without surgery. Still, some patients who have seen a doctor just once or a few times would like to go to someone else they trust, especially if a doctor-patient relationship has not been well established.
The truth is, even doctors ask their colleagues for their opinions regarding their diagnosis and management of certain problematic cases. They discuss interesting cases in their grand rounds and conferences. And it is not uncommon for doctors to have varying opinions, based on their clinical experience and expertise. Furthermore, it is also possible that a second opinion does not lead a patient to a decision or acceptance of his situation, but instead leads him to seek a third or fourth opinion until he finds the answers to his questions or likes what ...
... middle of paper ...
...least risks. You do not have to agree with the second doctor's recommendations. In some cases you might want to reconsider the first doctor's advice. Sometimes, the second doctor may give a similar advice as your first doctor. However, if you think you need a third opinion, which is not at all irregular, go for it until you are sure of your decision.
Works Cited
WebMD. Second Opinions. http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/second-opinions;
AHA. Getting a Second Medical Opinion http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/MyHeartandStrokeNews/Getting-a-Second-Medical-Opinion_UCM_434325_Article.jsp; CNN. Five diagnoses that call for a second opinion. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/08/30/ep.second.opinion/index.html;
Van de Graaff, E. Never hesitate to seek a second medical opinion.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/11/hesitate-seek-medical-opinion.html
Healthcare professionals should always act within their scope of practice and provide quality of care to the public without discrimination or assumptions. In the emergency room, doctors have to make decisions that might affect one patient over another depending on the medical condition of both; but, when the conditions are similar, how do doctors decide who gets to be seeing/ treated first? is it based on prognosis, age or socioeconomic status? What factors should doctors take in consideration to make the “right” decision? In the case of Marguerite M. and the Angiogram, Marguerite, an 89 years old ‘widow’ suffered a massive heart attack and was due to have an angiogram within the first six hours of the heart attack in order for treatment to
In her personal essay, Dr. Grant writes that she learned that most cases involving her patients should not be only handled from a doctor’s point of view but also from personal experience that can help her relate to each patient regardless of their background; Dr. Grant was taught this lesson when she came face to face with a unique patient. Throughout her essay, Dr. Grant writes about how she came to contact with a patient she had nicknamed Mr. G. According to Dr. Grant, “Mr. G is the personification of the irate, belligerent patient that you always dread dealing with because he is usually implacable” (181). It is evident that Dr. Grant lets her position as a doctor greatly impact her judgement placed on her patients, this is supported as she nicknamed the current patient Mr.G . To deal with Mr. G, Dr. Grant resorts to using all the skills she
On the other hand, share decision making is nota as effective for clinicians as it is for patients. According to studies [4], clinicians result to be debated if the model is positive or negative considering the care. Practitioners usually have in mind a particular plan and know what is best for the patient, but sometimes the patient, being able to make his own choice and take part of the final decision, considers the opposite option to be more appropriate. In these cases debates might arise, complicaing the procedure and leading share decision making to be negative. On the other hand if patient and practitioner are able to reach a final decision that coincides, the model results to be positive and efficient. [5]
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
In closing this story, as well as many others should be a lesson on why we as patients should research our doctor’s background intensely before we choose to be under their care. If we are referred to a doctor by another doctor it is okay to still investigate their history with past patients. It is our bodies and our choice who we let perform surgery or any other procedure on at all times. If we feel uncomfortable at any time for any reason we have the right to refuse care from any doctor. So many people do not realize this and it is a sad fact. I urge everyone to do their homework on their doctor before choosing one. Look at their school back ground, accreditations, years in the field as well as lawsuits or complaints filed. These steps will help weed out the negligent doctors.
...s mind, whether that is better pain treatment or a new doctor and if that doctor fails to satisfy those requests to the point of changing the patients mind then the doctor should grant the patients wish.
Patients deserve the full attention of their doctor. (Wilkinson) One of the things that is distracting health care professionals from paying attention to their patients is technology. Physicians can get so caught up with filling out forms and answering calls that they aren’t giving enough time to their patient. (Britt) A harmless solution to this problem is just asking the person to wait a few minutes, so the doctor can finish up what they’re doing and then be able to devote their full attention to the patient. There needs to be a balance between giving someone very little time and wasting too much time on one person. That’s why doctors not only need to focus but also remain in control. Often patients will ramble on about their problem even after the doctor has figured out what’s wrong. For a case like that, every doctor should have something prepared to say in order to go treat other patients.
Like many facilities, nurses are utilizing judgment, and this means making a decision. Nurses are often placed in a so called “hot box” by RRT leads on justifying the call, so in turn, they become skidtish of calling or stretch themselves out on their own scope of practice. With the availability of RRTs, nurses and ancillary staff shouldn’t over analyze themselves or the situation, if there’s a concern, make the call, a life is potentially at
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. Communication is important in a medical setting, and is especially important when talking about the health of an individual. With relevant, appropriate and humanistic communication, telling a patient their diagnosis can and should be done in a caring way.
But one may wonder when DPB is necessary and what the benefits of such practice are. Cullen and Klein state that “this deception-to-benefit-the-patient view has a prima facie (at first glance) appeal,” although some may argue that this line of thinking has not yet been proven with positive results. One illustration to this theory is when a doctor tells a kidney transplant recipient that he is doing good and that the prognosis looks promising with the justification that the patient, although the kidney is not functioning at all, but after hearing the positive feedback from the physician, it may lift his spirit and regain full health. The physicians with this type of ideology presume that “a sick person isn’t made better by gloomy assessments.” This type of DBP is intended to be used in order to benefit the patient, however, there are no proven cases to confirm that this method works, and it’s merely intended as an effort for the physicians to make the patient feel better, furthermore, as stated by Cullen and Klein “In all but rarest cases, deceiving a patient ‘for his own good’ is an unacceptable way for a physician to try to help her patient.” (Cullen & Klein
Roger Higgs, in “On Telling Patients the Truth” supplies commonly used arguments for paternalistic deception. For the purposes of this paper, paternalism will be defined as, “interference with one’s autonomy or self determination for their own good.” The first argument for paternalistic deception is founded on the idea that medicine is a technical subject where there are very few guarantees (613). Thus, Higgs supplies the argument that not only is it impossible for a patient to understand the true breadth of their diagnosis and prognosis, but additionally that medical predictions are not medical truths. The second argument for paternalistic deception comes from the belief that patients do not actually want to know the truth about their condition, and could suffer from worse health outcomes if they are told the truth (614, 615).
“The Doctor” presented interesting and emotional concepts accurately representing the philosophies and behaviors of many medical professionals. Perhaps its viewing would be beneficial by members of our medical community, and provide a framework to the personalization of patient care.
Truth in medicine is a big discussion among many medical professionals about how doctors handle the truth. Truth to a patient can be presented in many ways and different doctors have different ways of handling it. Many often believe that patient’s being fully aware of their health; such as a bad diagnosis, could lead to depression compared to not knowing the diagnosis. In today’s society doctor’s are expected to deliver patient’s the whole truth in order for patients to actively make their own health decisions. Shelly K. Schwartz discusses the truth in her essay, Is It Ever Ok to Lie to Patients?. Schwartz argument is that patients should be told the truth about their health and presented and addressed in a way most comfortable to the patient.
The American Medical Association (AMA) developed a Code of Medical Ethics which includes: the patient has a right to obtain and discuss health information related to benefits, risks, and costs of treatment alternatives; patient’s can make decisions pertaining to healthcare suggested by the physician; the patient has the right to courtesy, respect, dignity, and attention to healthcare needs in a timely manner; and the patient has a right to confidentially, continuity, and adequate health care. (emedicinehealth, 2011). Communicating openly and honestly between the patient and doctor will allow both parties to make decisions to properly take care of needs.
Consequently, it can be assumed that doctors might tend to avoid such a confession in order to maintain their image of being a “good doctor” (J.Shahidi). Not being a good doctor may eventually lead to doctor’s loss of business and as a result physicians may tend to hide the truth even if it opposes patient autonomy