Prostate Cancer Case

When you need medical advice or treatment, we put a huge amount of trust in medical professionals. However, medical experts with serious consequences can make mistakes.

Introduction Prostate cancer (PC) has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. An estimated 230,000 new cases were diagnosed in 2014, accounting for 27% of new cancer cases in men [1]. Although 80–90% of PC with metastatic lesions responds to initial androgen ablation therapy, most of these patients ultimately develop progressive disease of hormone refractory cancer [2]. Obesity, as a growing epidemic all over the world, has been linked to mortality of several cancers [3].

The facts of this case are that Dr. Guiles who is self-conscious of his prostate cancer diagnosis is treated horrendously when he finally decides to have surgery ( Buchbinder, Shanks & Buchbinder, 2014). Considering that Dr. Guiles is already sensitive about his condition, his unbearable symptoms are not helping matters (Buchbinder et al, 2014). Upon arrival at the hospital, he is treated subpar. The admitting clerk is rude and unbecoming to a patient who isn’t feeling well and who is embarrassed about his sickness (Buchbinder et al., 2014). To make matters worse, he has to find his own way up to the floor by walking, which causes him to be even later in checking in because of the need to stop frequently to urinate as well as having difficulty in walking (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Once he arrives on the floor, the charge nurse is not welcoming and unprofessional (Buchbinder et al., 2014). After figuring out what to do with the paperwork; and the nurse aide delivers Dr. Guiles to his room, the nurse aide does not offer to help settle him in (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Therefore, Dr. Guiles is faced with battling obnoxious family members who are on his bed and to make matters worse someone is in the bathroom which doesn’t help his need of having to frequently urinate (Buchbinder et al., 2014). When the issues are brought up to the charge nurse, the charge nurse accuses Dr. Guiles of wanting preferential treatment

There are challenges that Dr. Correia goes through on occasion. One problem he has is working with the patient’s provider and figuring out what exactly the provider wants him to do. Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out what specific tests the provider wants to have Dr. Correia do. Another problem Dr. Correia comes across is when all the tests show nothing wrong so he has to figure out the puzzle of what’s going on with the patient. After figuring out what is wrong with the patient, it also might to difficult to tell the patient if the test results came out bad.

The authors friend Bruce, would be a clear advocate of being uninformed and making a decision without extensive inquiries. A patient being at the age of 82, having gone through numerous procedures such as an aortic-aneurysm repair, pacemaker, dialysis, now facing fainting episodes, left the decision making to his son, possibly assuming he would understand what to make of the situation. But Bruce did not research the surgery and its risk but only the best hospital for his father to undergo the surgery. The team did inform him of risks, but further expressed how the procedure was now very routine and they were sure of successful results. The definition of successful deferred for the doctors as opposed to Bruce. Their success was a procedure performed that would reduce the future risk of a stroke, not better was what causing the fainting episodes. For Bruce, success would have been his father being able to interact again, but instead his description of his father is “no life in his eyes….He’s like the living dead”, few months later his father dies. Doctors insisted on the procedures, despite having risks that outweighed the benefit, though I cannot say he would have lived longer otherwise, but suffering from a stroke while having surgery may just have contributed to a short lived recovery period. For a patient, or person making decisions for a patient, would this case not suggest that Bruce

Each year approximately 233,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer (Eggener, Cifu, & Nabhan, 2015). In 2015, prostate cancer was the second most common cancer related cause of death among United States men (Eggener, et. al., 2015). While the majority of prostate cancers are slow growing with a 5-year survival rate of approximately 98%, statistics show that when prostate cancer is identified as metastatic, the 5-year survival rate dramatically drops down to 20-25% (Eggener, et. al., 2015). According to these numbers alone, it appears screening for prostate cancer would be a well-accepted practice. However, current methods of screening for this cancer are controversial and has lead organizations like the U.S Preventative Service Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) to different guidelines for screening.

The paper Prostate Cancer Screening is written as an analysis of the controversy on the use of screening for prostate cancer. The paper itself is written between doctors Elie Mulhem, Nikolaus Fulbright, and Norah Duncan. The analysis, while likely directed to those in the medical field, is tailored to be easily understood by laypeople. While the paper itself is a somewhat brief, surface level analysis of the situation, it does support the notion that prostate cancer screening through methods like prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital-rectal examinations (DRE) have questionable effectiveness. The intention of the paper appears to persuade doctors and the public to the viewpoint that prostate

Dr. Gray was a physician who was taking care of one of his partner’s patients while the partner, Dr. Leavitt, was away. One morning a sixty-year-old man who was a previous patient of Dr. Leavitt, Mr. Karnofsky, came in to the office wheezing and coughing. After the description of all of Mr. Karnofsky’s symptoms, Dr. Gray sent him for an x-ray, which revealed cancer. Dr. Gray had not seen any notes in the patient’s chart of anything previously abnormal, but according to the radiologist who took the x-ray, a previous x-ray eighteen months before had found a lung nodule in the same lung that currently showed cancer. The radiology section of Mr. Karnofsky’s chart did hold of record of the nodule and the recommendation for repeat x-rays, but Dr. Leavitt had ignored or not seen them and had not told the patient. The

This issue of full disclosure to patients regarding errors and information about treatment is delicate. On the one hand, patients have the power to exert their autonomy in making decisions about their health. On the other hand, doctors are responsible for educated and informing patients and the community regarding issues. I believe that, taking into consideration both sides, doctors are responsible for providing all information necessary for a patient to make a fully informed decision. In addition, full disclosure of errors is vital to ensuring the patient maintains autonomy in his or her life.

Currently, The American Cancer Society is facing a problem with transportation that they hope to soon find a solution for nationwide. The number of people that are affected by cancer each year is growing, thus the need for transportation to and from treatment centers continues to grow as well. The Road to Recovery program is a wonderful tool that The American Cancer Society has implemented, but unfortunately it is not able to meet the ever growing demand for transportation. Due to the fact that this service is provided by volunteers, using their time, gas, and vehicles, it is not easy to secure the number of volunteers necessary to meet all of the transportation needs. This problem often leads to family members missing a substantial amount of work and putting their livelihoods in danger, patients rescheduling treatments, or even worse, missing necessary treatments. Within the local offices there is also a need for a volunteer coordinator due to the time and effort it takes to interview potential drivers, conduct background checks, secure additional insurance, and schedule the drivers with the patients. The volunteer coordinator position is completed voluntarily and is often another area of need for The American Cancer Society.

Even though, the test results were the same as the paramedic advice, it did not change his perception; however, it helped me realized that people need to be educated and inform how healthcare is a constantly changing. For example, long back only physician could perform primary care and now we have PA and NP. I believe paramedic are trained to do basic care and have the obligation to take only patient with emergency need to reduce overcrowding in the

This can be read as a key ethical question to many healthcare case studies because of the errors and situations that occur. One of the explanations for this occurrence may be the overwhelming workload, chaotic environment and lack of individual attention prescribed to each patient. These issues can cause a disruption to the ethical principle of Beneficence. The principle of Beneficence calls to action the act of helping others and having compassion for the patients. This principle can be threatened when a doctor or caretaker is overworked and unable to effectively manage the series of patients and work they are assigned to take on. I believe that the admitting doctor did not initially catch the error of not calling for the specific drug need because he was more focused on getting Mr. Londborg stable and on the medication to treat his initial and present condition before worrying about the preventative medication. In addition, the doctor was so focused on helping everyone all at once that he was blind to the small details and loose ends that needed to be taken care

Maintain confidentiality for their patients. Patients put all of their trust into healthcare professionals and it’s their job to try and encourage their patients to do what is best and what is right. This case is a great example of when this duty is needed. I feel that Dr. A has an obligation to warn George of Brian's condition. Dr. A could sit down with Brian P. and explain that he is obligated to warn his partner if he does not. I think that Dr. A should be open with Brian P about what he must do. As well, that either way, his partner will find out somehow

This is 39 year old male. Patient reports he has Hep C, was confirmed by UAB and was sent to ARMS for treatment. Patient also has genital warts, depression and headache. Patient denies chest pain, SOB, N/V/ D, or fever. Patient reports depressive moods, denies thoughts of suicide or homicide. Patient denies any pain, 0/10. Patient is a current tobacco user, denies use of alcohol or illict drugs. Patient is a current resident at the Fellowship

By not revealing a medical error to the patient, the health care specialist prominently puts their own agenda first over the patients’ needs and moral right to know. The courage to show integrity and to do the right thing is a trait that all health care workers must possess in order to do no harm to the patient. For the physician to choose not to ask justly and hide the mal practice shows that the physician does not practice nonmaleficence. This leaves the patient worried about the prognosis of their treatment. As well as, if medical errors are reported it can be a teaching tool on how to prevent in the future and protect other patients.