The Ethical Issues Of Medicine Essay

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.

According to Higgs, one reason why a medical profession might withhold the truth from the patient is that : it may actually do harm through anxiety and distress that's produced after disclosing the truth. At times, truth-telling can lead to major/acute distress or long term disability. There can also be times where distress and fear can lead to a more severe condition of an illness or even causing a patient to deny the treatment. In either way, there is a high chance that the worsening of the illness may occur after a physician disclosing the truth to his/her

I think it’s a part of the doctors’ responsibility to keep a good professional relationship with one’s patients. Collins states “those who do not want to know, and who if they were told would be injured by it; those who are wholly incapable of receiving the truth.” (pg.193). Going back to the client relationship models Collins believes that doctors should use a parent model on their patients. The parent model is when doctors have more experience and knowledge that they use to make decisions without telling the patients about their own health as if they were a child. This model and view basically strips the patient from autonomy and the choice of making his or her own decisions. In a whole, this premise is wrong because patients should have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to their own health.

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

Currently, most people generally accept a doctor’s word as truth and do not question him or her. When it comes to the medical field, patients can often feel overwhelmed by all the confusing medical terms being thrown at them, so they tend to sit back and do as the doctor says. Healthcare professionals sometimes take advantage of this fact and withhold important information from their patients. For instance, a study conducted by Lisa Lezzoni, MD, and her peers states that more than half of physicians lied to their patients about their diagnosis to put a more positive spin on it (Lezzoni, Rao, DesRoches, Vogeli, and Campbell). Healthcare professionals should disclose to the patient any information pertaining to the patient.

Canada is a multicultural country. Healthcare providers, therefore, face certain challenges associated with this. The CMA Code of Ethics recommends that “physicians provide patients with whatever information that will, from the patient's perspective, have a bearing on medical care decision-making and communicate that information in a way that is comprehensible to the patient.” [1]. This statement has a very important message, which implies that the truth telling is not a mandatory burden that every patient must endure but rather a stage-like process delivered by a healthcare provider and guided by the patient.

Patients come to the physician because of a problem that they are having and with that notion they are prepared to give full details of their problem. Giving information to the medical staff is a

Before a health care organization implements an EMR system, they should have a security system in place, which includes “access control” component. Access control within an EMR system is controlled by distinct user roles and access levels, the enforcement of strong login passwords, severe user verification/authorization and user inactivity locks. Health care of professionals regardless of their level, each have specific permissions for accessing data. Even though the organization have the right security system in place to prevent unauthorized users from access patient records, autonomous patients will expect to have access to his or her records with ease. Access their record will ensure that their information is correct and safe.

Truth-telling is an important issue within the nurse-patient relationship. Nurses make decisions on a daily basis regarding what information to tell patients. The specific issue in question is whether a nurse should abide by the Code of Ethics for Nurses by revealing the truth to the patient or refrain from telling the truth to the patient because they are respecting the wishes of the patient’s family. Nurses and health care professionals should always tell the truth to their patients unless the patient forgoes their rights to autonomy or cannot think for themselves. By providing the patient with the truth, they allow the patient to come to terms with their conditions and give them the options for further treatment.

I enjoyed reading your DQ 1 post this week, and it is the patients right to choose, but only if they are deemed competent. They also have to respond willingly. It is also important to understand that telling patients the truth no matter what even if the patient is fatally ill is what is required out of a health care professional. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it is considered the standard of care in the United States (U.S.). To preserve and enhance the patient's autonomy the Patient Self-determination Act was enacted. However, some might say that doctors responsibilities and family integrity are being set to the side ( ). But I think otherwise because it is our right to choose what we believe would be

“If you don’t have integrity, you have nothing. You can’t buy it. You can have all the money in the world, but if you are not a moral and ethical person, you really have nothing”. –Henry Kravis - The American healthcare system delivers some of the finest care in the world. However, despite the high level of achievement delivered from the American healthcare system, it is afflicted with problems. Ethical issues that occur in the healthcare delivery system are indeed common. Almost every decision that is made in a healthcare organization has ethical implications. These ethical implications are towards the patient, provider and the leader of the organization. Ethics tend to determine which actions will contribute to an individual fulfillment of happiness. Ethics are very powerful and tend to presuppose freedom and responsibility in the organization. In my current place of employment the care of patients is integrated with medical research, which in return allows for the healthcare practices to continuously be studied and improved. As a healthcare leader or worker, decisions will be made when the common good of both the patients and organization must be taken into consideration. As an effective healthcare leader one must practice adhering to the ethical standards and codes of conduct for his or her individual place of employment. According to Rae (2009), there are 7 steps in making moral decisions. The seven

However, a Kantian doctor will say that is immoral and he should tell the truth about the person’s diagnosis. It is the duty of the doctor to be honest to his/her patients. Also, we should respect a patient’s own right to decide for his/her life. We cannot use the patient as mean to achieve other ends which is the greatest happiness of the people involved. One may argue that utilitarian consider long term consequences if doctor lie. Although this is true, we must not forget sometime long term consequence is not uncovered. When long term consequences are not known, we cannot make a moral decision, where as Kant’s approach concern about the duty of doctor instead of outcome of the action.

There are a number of key elements that help to provide a framework that enhances truthful communication. Firstly, there is the need to develop open and honest communication from the very beginning of the patient-health professional relationship. Secondly, the health professional needs to use patient penchant as a “weigh” by asking them what they wish to know, how much they wish to know, and determining what they already know. In other words, it is a responsibility of the health professional to get a ‘feel’ for the situation, including the patients’ perception of the situation (Ashcroft, Dawson & Drape 2007).

Doctors think that they have the right not to tell the truth to their patients because of their paternalistic view. They point at patients’ misunderstanding of diagnosis because of the esoteric information and patients’ lacking of making best choices due to their illnesses or medicine to support this view. Although these are true, doctors just think for one side and they generalize it. To go into further detail, knowing the truth is a

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.