This morning I read a survey online that over of the 679 physicians surveyed gave their patients placebos. These doctors were treating arthritis patients and 60 percent of the physicians felt that giving patients placebos were ethically permissable. Some of the physicians did not disclose to the patients that they were receiving placebos and sometimes the patients were given these medications 2 to 3 times per month. It is hard to understand how these physicians felt that this type of treatment was ethical.
In the article it states that under the standards of the American Medical Association, it is unethical which states that patients should have full knowledge of treatment they are receiving. It is not fair to give patients treatment that is not helping their condition. They are paying for and taking medication that is doing no good to their health. This could eventually cause financial hardship to a patient. It is similar to buying a car and not knowing that the motor is not included. The car will not work without the motor. These placebos are not working and helping the patient. I would be skeptical receiving care from a physician who thought this aspect of their practice was ethical. This is apparently unethical because it is a violation of patient's rights. Patients have the right to know the type of medications they are receiving especially if the are placebos. This issue is also a violation of the AMA Code of Ethics which states that physicians should be honest in all professional interactions and make relevant information available to patients.
Deontological Ethics involves telling the truth. These physicians cannot consider themselves honest if they are giving patients medications and the patients feel these medications will be used to help their conditions.The patients had arthritis and this is a very painful condition. Which makes the circumstances of this issue worse. Giving the patients the placebos 2 to 3 times per month does not seem to be conscientious behavior as well. Hopefully with this article patients will take a closer look at the behaviors of their caregivers and will encourage other physicians to not take on the practices of their fellow colleagues.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
University of Kentucky
During one of my classes, Health Care Needs of the Elderly, we had a guest speaker who was the CEO of Winter Park Memorial Hospital. He told us the story of a physician in Kentucky who branded "UK" for his alma mater (University of Kentucky) onto a patient. This seemed to be very unethical and inappropriate so I wanted to do more research on the topic. I found an article going into more detail about that the guest speaker told us. A woman went to the physician to have a hysterectomy and allowed the physician to videotape the surgery in 2002. The physician branded "UK" on the uterus of the patient during her surgical procedure. In the article I read, there was a picture of the brand which was very disturbing (picture is listed above). It is not understandable why a physician would act in this manner. He was aware that the procedure was being videotaped but continued to brand the patient. It is not understood if he felt that this would be amusing to the patient or if the patient would disregard this immature behavior.
When patients put their lives into the hands of a caregiver they expect to receive the best of their care and the physician who degraded his patient in this manner should have been heavily reprimanded. This was a violation of patient rights. Normative ethics relates to this story because this type of ethics is designed to determine what moral standards should be followed so that human behavior and conduct may be morally right. The physician also did not demonstrate what most would consider good moral judgment in this case. Branding a patient does not appear to be good moral judgment on the physician's behalf. This leads to a violation of Code of Medical Ethics. This code states that " A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights." The patient's human dignity was not treated with respect and there is no way to justify the behavior of this physician. Another Code of Medical Ethics that was violated was maintaining standards of professionalism and respecting the rights of the patient.
It is saddening that events such as this one occur in health care. Having a procedure that the patient had, was a very serious procedure and having the physician violate her rights was very depressing. If I am placing my care into the hands of a caregiver I was superior service and with a hysterectomy, this could also be a very difficult procedure for some women. Hopefully the patient feel as if justice has been served and the physician has learned his lesson in ethics.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
John Q
I had to watch John Q for another class and saw that the movie embraced a huge ethical dilemma. For those who are not familiar with the movie. It is the story of a working class family (The Archibalds) whose life is about to change with an unexpected health tragedy. The son of the Archibalds is about 9 years old and while playing baseball one day he collapsed. He was taken to the hospital and the family was told that he needed a heart transplant but his insurance was not going to cover it. The heart transplant would cost $250,000 but in order to place the son on the list to receive a heart the family would have to pay $30,000 cash. The son did not have long to live and after coming up short on the deposit, the hospital decided to release the son.
Situations like this occur everyday in the United States. Families are not able to pay for health care and they are placed in situations such as this. Ethics is questioned when asking a family to make a cash payment to save the life of a child. This was a working class family who did not have the $30,000 to pay for the heart transplant deposit. They sold almost everything they had and still was not able to come up with the money. To add to the turmoil the hospital tried to release the child knowing he was not in good condition and would not live much longer without the transplant. The hospital should have had more alternatives for the family besides telling them to make a cash payment. I feel it is the responsibility of the hospital to help everyone especially those who need life saving treatment. One of the principles of ethics is beneficience which stands for the act of doing good. In this case, the hospital was not acting on this principle of ethics. In my opinion, asking a family to pay $30,000 and trying to release a dying child is not beneficience.
The principle of human dignity was also questioned in this dilemma. Human life is very significant and sending someone home to die does not constitute the right of human life. The hospital took away the child's right to live by refusing to place him on the list to receive a heart and trying to release him to go home. If the child only had a short time to live with the help of the hospital, imagine what would have happened if he would have went home without any medical treatment or support. The hospital did not consider this because receiving money seemed to be most important.
In the movie, the Archibalds had an HMO and one of the employees said that HMO receive incentives for not offering treatments to patients which raises another ethical dilemma. The father said that the child receives a check up every year and no doctor every said that he was healthy and had no conditions. The dilemma here is clear, if the doctors would have ran tests prior to the incident, they could have seen that the child did not have a healthy heart and could have possibly treated him. There have been many speculations that HMOs do not offer treatments and in return receive incentives at the end of the year. This is unethical because the job of the physician is to maintain the health of the patient. If the physician does not give all of the treatments they are reducing the quality of care as well as the health of the patient.
These were two ethical dilemmas in the movie John Q that I felt should be pointed out. It is important for health facilities to realize their responsibilites and react ethically and lawfully. It is unfortunate that these events do occur often. Which is why ethics and law play significant roles in regards to the care of patients and health care organizations.
Situations like this occur everyday in the United States. Families are not able to pay for health care and they are placed in situations such as this. Ethics is questioned when asking a family to make a cash payment to save the life of a child. This was a working class family who did not have the $30,000 to pay for the heart transplant deposit. They sold almost everything they had and still was not able to come up with the money. To add to the turmoil the hospital tried to release the child knowing he was not in good condition and would not live much longer without the transplant. The hospital should have had more alternatives for the family besides telling them to make a cash payment. I feel it is the responsibility of the hospital to help everyone especially those who need life saving treatment. One of the principles of ethics is beneficience which stands for the act of doing good. In this case, the hospital was not acting on this principle of ethics. In my opinion, asking a family to pay $30,000 and trying to release a dying child is not beneficience.
The principle of human dignity was also questioned in this dilemma. Human life is very significant and sending someone home to die does not constitute the right of human life. The hospital took away the child's right to live by refusing to place him on the list to receive a heart and trying to release him to go home. If the child only had a short time to live with the help of the hospital, imagine what would have happened if he would have went home without any medical treatment or support. The hospital did not consider this because receiving money seemed to be most important.
In the movie, the Archibalds had an HMO and one of the employees said that HMO receive incentives for not offering treatments to patients which raises another ethical dilemma. The father said that the child receives a check up every year and no doctor every said that he was healthy and had no conditions. The dilemma here is clear, if the doctors would have ran tests prior to the incident, they could have seen that the child did not have a healthy heart and could have possibly treated him. There have been many speculations that HMOs do not offer treatments and in return receive incentives at the end of the year. This is unethical because the job of the physician is to maintain the health of the patient. If the physician does not give all of the treatments they are reducing the quality of care as well as the health of the patient.
These were two ethical dilemmas in the movie John Q that I felt should be pointed out. It is important for health facilities to realize their responsibilites and react ethically and lawfully. It is unfortunate that these events do occur often. Which is why ethics and law play significant roles in regards to the care of patients and health care organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)