Paradox Benevolent Deception In Medical Research

As I grew older, the need for me to attend these visits were increased due to my proficiency in English. Fortunately, there was now a translator between my parents and the physician, however the authenticity of the translation was skeptical. This is a common issue among the children of non-English speaking families who are unable to successfully relay issues regarding health and finances from the healthcare provider themselves. Due to the complexity of the conditions and the emotional burden that it may contain, I often found myself struggling to relay these messages to my family. There were times where I found myself sugarcoating the diagnoses given by the physician because I did not understand the severity and because I did not want it to impact my family. Once I became a teenager, I realized withholding pertinent information was actually doing more harm than good.

Being a doctor requires a lot of hard work and commitment to help others and look for the patient’s well being, but has it always been this way? In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot, she claims in paragraph 4 on page 130 that doctors used to withhold information from patients just so they won’t deny the test being made, and this way obtain their wanted benefit. The author’s claim is supported by the events of the patients from jail, Henrietta’s autopsy, and Henrietta’s cells overall.

In doing so, a lie ensues in attempt to comfort the patient. Medical terms or diagnoses could easily frighten a patient if too horrifying. In Henrietta’s case, telling her that the treatments would have made her infertile would have, potentially, killed her; given that she would not have gone through with them. The paradox is that of lying for good intentions. Today, this would be considered highly un-ethical and downright illegal. But in a public ward as Hopkins, with segregation prominent during this time, it was a common act by doctors. (Page 63-64)

The narrator first talks about her experience with an elderly patient who had Gonorrhea. While presenting about a patient, Mr. Z the medical student reveals that Mr. Z has Gonorrhea because she feels that it might be relevant to the patient’s current diagnosis of dysuria and intermittent hematuria. When the resident made a comment that led the patient to realize that the medical student and revealed his secret, I realized how unlike the residents the medical student seemed to be more mature as she felt like a traitor in revealing the personal information to his colleagues. It really bothered me how later when the narrator said that the “privacy of your body is violated constantly by doctors and nurses.” While in context this makes sense, as doctors need to do physical examinations and ask multitudes of questions in order to ensure an accurate diagnosis, I don’t think it is doing justice to the

The concept of informed consent that we have today did not exist in the 1950s when Henrietta’s cells were obtained. Patients were regularly used in research without their knowledge. Nevertheless, some doctors had unethical standards. Dr. Chester Southam, a credible researcher of cancer, developed a theory that “the cancer was caused by either a virus or an immune system deficiency” (Skloot 128) and the bodies of patients’ who had suffered with cancer in the past would reject the HeLa cells. He tested the patients and “he said nothing about injecting them with someone else’s malignant cells” (Skloot 128). Southam believed that revealing details to patients would create a “phobia and ignorance” (Skloot 130) in their mind. He injected “more than six hundred people for his research, about half of them cancer patients” (Skloot 129), telling them “he was testing their immune systems” (Skloot 128). Southam expanded with his experiments on testing

Goldman brings up a more controversial situation in which the physician effectively deceives the patient by withholding information pertaining to the patients’ medical condition from the patient himself. He maintains that the right to be told the truth is not innate, and just as in the case of coercion, it must be determined whether the information might be detrimental to the patients’ health directly or whether it might affect

Privacy legislation and the legal complexities surrounding the ownership and management of patient information, many physicians are wary about when they may or may not release such information to patient and other parties. All patients have the right to the information in their medical records. In certain situations the physicians have the right to refuse the release of patient information to the patient, if the have any reason to believe that the disclosed information would have a reverse effect on the patient’s mental, physical, emotional health, or cause harm to a third party. When needed to be transferred a copy of the information may be sent directly from the former physician to the new one. In other circumstance the patient can receive the record themselves and hand it directly to the new physician. It is recommended that the original files are not released, instead a photocopy or scan of it may be sent. A physician may release patient information to lawyers and other parties when requested to do so only if the patient or the patient's substitute decision-maker has given authorization, preferably in writing, or if authorized by law or a court order.When information is

Like previously stated, there has been a vast history of racial issues particularly in the medical field. These issues have led to minorities, especially African Americans, to not trust medical professionals and procedures. A study found in the Archives of Internal Medicine gives shocking results by stating that “African Americans were far less trusting than whites of the medical establishment and medical researchers in particular. African Americans were 79.2 percent more likely to believe that someone like them would be used as a guinea pig without his or her consent” (Clark 118). There are many cases in the past which would make a minority feel neglected and like a “guinea pig”. For instance, Henrietta Lacks, the main character of Rebecca Skloot’s book, was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1951. Her doctors were shocked at the terrifying rate her tumor was growing (Skloot 117). Her cells were taken from her cervix and they were distributed world wide without her or her family’s consent. The distribution went on for years even after her death

Seeing information about a healthcare user in such terms makes me realise that some information is not necessarily in the public domain and therefore I have a privilege and responsibility to not only care for the patient but also for the knowledge about them that I am privy to. I realise that, although I have a duty to retain confidentiality, I may be placed in a position where the confidence has to also include other healthcare professionals and I need to involve the patient in such a situation (ibid).

There were 884 million doctor’s visits in the US alone in 2014, another 125 million counting hospital visits. It is clear that society trusts the doctors and nurses that it employs to uphold high standards to carry on with the task of saving lives. Our society doesn’t blink an eye and puts all its faith into doctors without question. Society assumes that all doctors are good and ignores the potential of an immoral doctor. A study conducted by the NCBI showed that 90% of all medical students have witnessed an unethical medical practice performed by the doctors that society had trusted. This means that if you had any doctor’s visits in the last few years, most likely you were a victim of an unethical practice. This is the situation that Henrietta Lacks faced at John Hopkins Hospital in the 1950s. Rebecca Skloot details the accounts of mistreatment and abuse that followed Henrietta Lacks in her novel The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta Lacks was an African American mother seeking cancer treatment at John Hopkins Hospitals, who ended up to be one of the biggest medical discoveries at the time. Doctors at the hospital discovered the power of her cells and in doing so abused and misuse Henrietta Lacks in the process, which ultimately led to her death. Although Henrietta Lack’s cells proved to beneficial to millions of people, the misconduct performed by the doctors is uncalled for and violates the oath that every doctor had sworn to. There is no

Although Immanuel Kant believes truth should be always be told despite the circumstances, is it really in the best interest of the patient in a medical setting? Physicians have a duty to the patient to take care of their wellbeing and that is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. Sometimes you have to be wishy washy with the truth, but only when it is in the interest of the patient and it depends case by case. Bad news can cause a patient to feel hopeless, fearful, and depressive which may cause other problems in any procedure. Kant also argues that confidentiality gives the patient autonomy and self-determination. Full disclosure would help the patient understand the severity of the case and thus, make better decisions in regards to their health.

While today’s “patients [have] one thing going for them that Henrietta didn't: They [are] alive. And the dead have no right to privacy-even if part of them is still alive,” (Skloot 211) history’s ethical debate regarding medical racism remains a social issue. When patients experience racism, they may be unable to defend themselves if they are incapacitated by medical professionals. Due to patient negligence and bias, the health care provider’s poor treatment breaks the trust of minorities. As shown in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and treatment of Henrietta Lacks, doctors and researchers have failed to inform the participants correctly. Both occurrences highlight medical racism because of the historical maltreatment of minority groups. Now, many

Confidentiality is a concept of vast importance for professionals in the medical field. It is a professional obligation in this field and is considered to be an ethical concept that falls in line with integrity, compassion, veracity, charity, and fidelity as explained in both the International Council of Nurses Code for Nurses (1973) and the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics (1985). However, in today’s ever growing world of technology and demand for information, challenges continue to arise that force doctors and nurses to reexamine virtues such as confidentiality.

The relationship between black patients and doctors has always been strained by the injustice done by doctors in history. One such example stated in the book is the Tuskegee syphilis studies: They recruited hundreds of African-American men with syphilis, then watched them die slow, painful, preventable deaths, even after they realized penicillin could cure them. …

When applying for a job, most interviewers require a background check on the applicant in order to ensure that they’re hiring the prime person for the job. This should be the same for a patient who is trying to find the best medical practitioner to fit their needs. When a patient is choosing who will be in charge of their health, it should be based on an informed and educated opinion in order to receive treatment from someone they’re comfortable with. In order to become comfortable with their doctor, the general public agree that they need some background information in order to be aware of who is treating them. People generally will choose a doctor based on their qualifications over personal issues, but a questionnaire sent to a sample of patients had 93% of respondents agreeing that “patients should always be informed if they have been treated by an infectious healthcare worker, even if the risk was very small.” (Blatchford). If such a large percentage of patients demand the right to be aware of their doctor’s health, then it should be obligatory for the healthcare worker to