0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
115 tayangan2 halaman
This document discusses several ethical principles that are important to consider in clinical cases, including respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, and quality of life. It notes that clinical situations often involve conflicts between a patient's autonomous choices and a physician's duty of beneficence. To resolve such conflicts, it is important to ensure the patient has the mental capacity and full understanding of their medical situation needed to make an informed decision. Considering all relevant ethical principles, medical factors, and respecting the patient's deliberate preferences can help lead to a decision that benefits both the patient and medical staff.
This document discusses several ethical principles that are important to consider in clinical cases, including respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, and quality of life. It notes that clinical situations often involve conflicts between a patient's autonomous choices and a physician's duty of beneficence. To resolve such conflicts, it is important to ensure the patient has the mental capacity and full understanding of their medical situation needed to make an informed decision. Considering all relevant ethical principles, medical factors, and respecting the patient's deliberate preferences can help lead to a decision that benefits both the patient and medical staff.
This document discusses several ethical principles that are important to consider in clinical cases, including respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, and quality of life. It notes that clinical situations often involve conflicts between a patient's autonomous choices and a physician's duty of beneficence. To resolve such conflicts, it is important to ensure the patient has the mental capacity and full understanding of their medical situation needed to make an informed decision. Considering all relevant ethical principles, medical factors, and respecting the patient's deliberate preferences can help lead to a decision that benefits both the patient and medical staff.
In any kind of clinical case, a lot of ethical issues often arise. Every actual ethical problem is a complex collection of many circumstances. The conflict between the doctors, nurses, patients, and relatives regarding what needs to be done usually happens. The question here is who needs to make the decision? Knowing the moral principles while making a decision is definitely important to maintain and protect the ethics that stays at the heart of quality care.
A lot of us know how important respect for autonomy is. Respect for autonomy includes respecting someones right to self-determination and mainly respecting his wishes, but autonomy in medicine is not merely allowing patients to build their own decisions easily. People come to doctors for assistance in making choices because they do not have the essential background or information for making informed choices. Physicians educate patients so that they understand the situation adequately. While beneficence on the other hand is providing benefits to persons to contribute to their welfare, meaning to do no harm. Beneficence can also involve protecting and defending the rights of others, helping individuals who are in the state of danger, and helping persons with ill health. Due to the nature of the relationship between physicians and patients, doctors do have an obligation to 1) prevent and remove harms, and 2) weigh and balance possible benefits against possible risks of an action. Beneficence can also
include protecting and defending the rights of others, rescuing persons who are in danger, and helping individuals with disabilities.
In this situation, the autonomous choice of the patient conflicts with the physicians duty of beneficence and following each ethical principle would lead to different actions. As long as the patient meets the criteria for making an autonomous choice, then the physician should respect the patients decisions even while trying to convince the patient otherwise. The patient should understand the decision and medical indication at hand and is not basing the decision on delusional ideas knowing that this clinical situation occurs just after an accident. Had the physical and emotional shock of the accident weaken his capability to make a decision for himself? If the patient is mentally incapacitated at the time a decision must be made, we must ask "Who has the authority to make a decision on behalf of this patient?. What are the ethical and legal parameters of that authority? Also the relevance of the quality of life of the patient should also be given justice, knowing Mr. HS quality of life before the motor-car accident would give us a better understanding about the patients decision. How can be Dr. M and the other doctors are of benefit and do no harm while respecting the patients deliberate preferences and honoring their values.
To sum it all up, I believe that understanding the moral principles and value in this clinical situation would lead to a decision that would benefit both parties. Understanding the explanation of medical indications, the degree risks permissible, the use of technological advances provides benefits that outweigh risks, the mental capacity of the patient to decide for himself, the quality of life of the patient, and the principle of autonomy should be the focus in this situation. As long as these moral principles, values, and factors are met and the procedure (including the risks, benefits and probable outcomes of each treatment modality) was clearly stated to the patient, then whatever the decision of Mr. HS will still be the final decision.