Is Autonomy Still Central To Medical Ethics Essay

In his article “Whose Body Is It, Anyway?”—appearing in the New Yorker in October 1994—Dr. Atul Gawande highlights the complexities of the doctor-patient relationship vis-à-vis patient autonomy and decision-making. Dr. Gawande explains that a respect for patient autonomy (i.e., allowing patients to choose between courses of treatment, therefore directly influencing their health outcome) is the “new normal” for medical practitioners. However, Gawande also contends that there are times when patients are better served by a voluntary relinquishment of that autonomy.

Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed

Another issue with the implementation of Informed consent arises when the patient waives the right to Informed consent and leaves the right to make the decision on the physician. Though legally correct, this can cause psychological stress for the physician especially when the decision is about a life threatening medical condition. Moreover, this also makes the patient vulnerable to abuse. (Manthous, DeGirolamo, 2003)

Autonomy includes three primary conditions: (1) liberty (independence from controlling influences), (2) agency (capacity for intentional action), and (3) understanding (through informed consent) (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 100). According to Beauchamp & Childress (2009) to respect autonomous agents, one must acknowledge their right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on their personal values and beliefs (p. 103). Respect for autonomy implies thaturges caregivers to respect theassist a patient in achieving? Heed? the autonomous choices of their patients. From there, patients can act intentionally and with full understanding when evaluating medical treatment modalities. Autonomy also includes a set of rules, one of which requires that providers honor patient decision-making rights by providing the truth, also known as veracity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 103). In this case, several facets of the principle of respecting autonomy, specifically veracity, informed

In his essay, The Refutation of Medical Paternalism, Alan Goldman states his argument against a strong doctor-patient role differentiation, in which the doctor may act against a patients’ immediate will in order to carry treatment in the patients’ best interest. Goldman frames his entire argument around the single assumption that a person’s freedom to decide his future is the most important and fundamental right as he claims “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.”[1] He claims that the majority of people would agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest

Every patient has a right to decide on their own course of treatment and freely consent to that treatment. In order to make an educated decision they must be provided with the proper information to make an informed choice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). It is the physician’s legal and ethical obligation to provide this information when making their recommendation on treatment. The choices given must be in accordance with good medical practice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). The informed consent is the legal policy, either written or verbal, that gives full disclosure of all the information including potential risks that is applicable to the patient’s condition and treatment being offered (Kazmier, 2008).

A physician who does not provide this to his/her patient may be liable for battery or negligence in the light of the doctrine of informed consent (Thorton 2000). As patients are entitled to this information, physicians possess a duty to disclose regarding risks and hazards, while performing the procedure or treatment as agreed with the patient. If the doctrine of informed consent did not exist, physicians would be able to perform medical treatments, procedures, without a patient’s consent or full knowledge of the perils of healthcare. In addition, healthcare demands trust which is necessary between patients and physicians in order to deliver beneficial health outcomes. If the doctrine of informed consent is not performed between the patient and physician, then trust diminishes resulting in poor health outcomes (Roach 2014). An example of deliberate harm due to uninformed consent exist in the research conducted in the Tuskegee experiment, where treatment was withheld and subjects were not informed of their illness or available treatments (CDC 2013) resulting in poor health and

An informed consent is the sovereign act by the patient or a research subject to authorize a healthcare professional to perform a medical procedure. It means that patients must be briefed on all the goals of the procedure, the methods to be used by the physician and all the risks that they might be subjected to while undergoing therapies/treatments. De Bord (2014), defines informed consent as “Informed consent is the process by which the treating health care provider discloses appropriate information to a competent patient so that the patient may make a voluntary choice to accept or refuse treatment” (as cited in Appelbaum, 2007). In this paper, I will argue that Jay Katz’s claim for the lack of genuine informed consent in healthcare field is firm by demonstrating and buttressing his claim. I will also pinpoint how Jay Katz’s argument is consistent with the medical professionals’ code of ethics

Informed Consent allows a doctor to render treatment to a patient. By signing the document states that the patient understands the circumstances and what is required. This paper is to analyze the consent and non-consent, and ethical issues that can become a problem.

I will argue that it isn’t permissible to withhold information from Merry regarding her medical condition. First, I’ll begin discussing the autonomy and paternalism in the context of the doctor-patient relationship. Second, conceptual issues of ethical dilemma, soft and hard paternalism, and the proposed justification of its implications. Perhaps the strongest argument is how a patient should be treated when they are not acting fully rational.

Informed consent is an integral part of the medical process, but what is it? How can the principles of Informed Consent conflict with each other or with patient care? It is important to examine Informed Consent very carefully and explore how the principles of Beneficence and Patient Autonomy work with each other for the best interests of the patients, even if the patient is refusing some treatment that is important in the standard of care. However, it may be possible that Informed consent and these elements work against one another, and conflict with the best interests of the patient.

As a result, this challenges the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence and nonmaleficence. At some point in our lives, we will be a patient in one way or another. As patients, we have the legal right to decide what’s in our best interest when it comes to the management of our health. The concept of autonomy is centered on the idea of self-governance. This means that patients have the right to play an active role in their treatment and medical care plan and have the right to receive or refuse treatment, the right to confidentiality, the right to select a healthcare proxy and the right for informed consent.

The patient-provider relationship is at the core of medical ethics and along with it are three major models that determine the medical decision making of each provider. The three models are the paternalistic model, the autonomy model and the deliberative model. The paternalistic model is defined as a patient-provider relationship model that involves the provider's professional knowledge to decide what is best for the patient. The paternalistic model denies the patients right to autonomy and the provider acts as the patient's guardian. The autonomy model is defined as a patient-provider relationship model that gives the patient their full autonomy in deciding what treatment to choose.

In healthcare, it is important to establish an informed consent. Informed consent is a process by which a client or client legal representative and the healthcare provider engage in a discussion about a course of medical treatment. It includes the risk of treatment, benefit, possible harm and consequences as well as alternatives provided by the healthcare practitioner or physicians in an understandable manner (Blais, K. & Hayes, J. S., 2016, p.85). Informed consent takes into consideration the safety of the patient. It allows the patients to ask questions about the procedures and discuss any concerns; by doing so can help improve patient outcomes and prevent medical errors.

Informed consent is the patient’s acceptance of all possible consequences of care. The American Medical Association (AMA) defines informed consent as “a process of communication between a patient and a physician that results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention” (What is Informed Consent?, 2017). All fifty states have legislation that requires some degree of informed consent. Exceptions are made for emergencies and mental incompetency or physical incapacity. Informed consent must be obtained by those of legal age (as determined by each state). In cases where the patient is a minor, the parent or guardian must consent. Failure by a physician to obtain informed consent is considered medical malpractice, and the physician is liable for negligence (Background: Requirements for Informed Consent, 2017).