There are various ethics and morals that are applicable to the health profession. In this regard, medical ethics is characterized by a specific problem whereby facts, values, and logic are deployed when deciding the best course of action to be undertaken. Even though some ethical problems encountered in the healthcare profession may be straightforward, there are cases where a health profession practitioner can be faced with the scenario of determining the right course of action from the wrong (Doherty & Purtilo, 2015). In such cases, the presented scenarios may be conflicting with each other whereby a health professional has to decide on the appropriate value system to adhere. It is for this reason that it should be acknowledged that health professionals usually deal with multiple perplexing ethical problems in the entire course of their problems. However, irrespective of the faced ethical scenario, healthcare practitioners are expected to embrace key values in the entire course of delivering their services. Some of the key values expected to be prioritized by healthcare practitioners when delivering their duties and responsibilities include autonomy, justice, beneficence, and nonmalfeasance. By acknowledging the ethics and morality in the health professions, this paper will seek to outline whether a patient must sometimes be protected from their own decision making. The paper will further detail whether an autonomous decision is a necessary reflection of the individual well-being. This will be discussed by evaluating whether individual rights have any chance of trumping the common good.
Protecting Patients from their own Decision Making
There are instances faced by the health professionals whereby patients should be protected from their own decision making. Such instances may include cases where patients refuse beneficial treatment from healthcare professionals. In such cases, it will be necessary for the decision-making capacity to be accessed as a way of determining the best course of action to be undertaken. Besides this, there are also cases where patients may refuse to give a satisfactory explanation of their reasons. It is through such instances that the ethics and morality in the health profession demand that a respective health practitioner should adhere to the relevant clinical guidance in ensuring that the right course of action is undertaken.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In most cases, it is required that all the ill persons receive the appropriate care to restore their health conditions and alleviate any suffering that may be diagnosed in the body of a patient. However, patients should only be free to make their choices if it is established that such choices do not harm themselves and the significant others in the surrounding. This is because there is an extensive ethical consensus that should be embraced by the patients in accepting or refusing medical interventions administered by healthcare professionals. However, for the case of incompetent patients, the decisions about intervening about their medical conditions will be made based on their initial stated wishes (Milliken, 2018). Furthermore, such decisions can also be made with the objective of the best interest or with the help of a proxy. Despite this, it should be noted that evaluation and capacity assessment of the patients’ abilities should be considered when evaluating the capability of patients to make their own healthcare-related decisions. Such an approach can play a crucial role in helping the clinicians determine the best course of action in the instances where patients decline beneficial treatment appropriate for their ailments.
Therefore, patients can be protected from their own decision making if they refuse beneficial treatment relevant for alleviating their ailment. In such cases, health professionals have the ethical and moral obligation to try their best and convince the patients towards accepting a given treatment. Such an approach is usually undertaken for the best interest of the patients. Given that embracing dialogue has an impact of fostering better decision making, patients can actively be involved when making such decisions to ensure that the final decisions reflect the ethics and morals expected to be embraced by the health professionals. However, healthcare professionals can embrace the assessment of the decision-making capacity of patients in the scenarios where they refuse the administered treatment. Such an approach can play a key role in understanding the goals of patients and also leading to the diagnosis of the specific conditions responsible for impairing their autonomy.
It is for this reason that it will be the duty of the health professionals to evaluate the understanding of the crucial and relevant information among the patients. The ability of the patients to express their choice will also be evaluated to determine if they have the capacity to make the right decision regarding their health condition. This can help in determining their reasoning ability and the extent of the risks that are likely to be encountered if the wishes of the patient are followed. It should be noted that assessing the decision-making ability of a patient may include the examination of personal elements such as mental abilities, doubts, and fears. Among competent patients, such interventions may be subjected to consenting by the patient. This helps a respective health professional to determine if the refusal of patients regarding a given intervention to their health problem is autonomous. Therefore, this demonstrates notable reasons as to why there is a need for patients to be protected from their own decision making. Such decisions are usually undertaken in line with the ethics and morals guiding the healthcare professions.
Reflection of Individual Well-being through an Autonomous Decision
It should be acknowledged that the autonomy of patients is a fundamental aspect that should be considered. However, it is very challenging, especially in the context of professional medical ethics and morals. Even though it is commonly asserted that the patients should have all the freedom when making choices about medical and health matters. However, it should be acknowledged that this is not always the case, especially considering that there has been a growing trend where paternalistic attitudes have extensively been interwoven in all the existing medical relationships. This has been attributed to the changing expectations of patients and the role played by doctors in the patient-physician relationship.
However, it should be noted that autonomous decisions do not necessarily reflect individual wellbeing. This is attributed to the fact that the concept of autonomy can be interpreted differently. In this regard, the made autonomous decisions dictate that the made medical interventions have to be made in accordance with the beliefs and values of the patient. However, this may not be realistic given that it is the ethical and moral obligation of a health professional to independently determine the appropriate course of action and intervention to the patients’ diagnosed medical conditions. This phenomenon has increasingly been attributed to the changing patient-physician relationship.
Therefore, autonomous decisions may not necessarily be the reflection of individual well-being. This is because a medical practitioner is expected to adhere to all the relevant clinical practices given that in the event that there is a problem, such a health professional will ethically and morally be held responsible (Kulju, Stolt, Suhonen & Leino-Kilpi, 2016). It is for this reason that the autonomous decisions made by the patient should not be relied upon when making key medical interventions among the patients. This is because a health professional may potentially be misguided and misinformed by some of the autonomous decisions that may be made by the patients, thus compromising the entire medical intervention process.
Individual Rights Trumping Common Good
There is a significant conflict between individual rights and the common goods in as far as the delivery of healthcare and medical services are concerned. In this case, it should be acknowledged there are individual rights that are attributable to the patients. However, there are limitations to the extent to which such individual rights may be embraced and be applicable in comparison to the common good. For instance, patients usually have the individual rights of confidentiality, privacy and informed consent (Pozgar, 2019). However, caution should be exercised to ensure that such individual rights characterizing the relationship between patients and physicians do not override the common good.
Whereas a patient may have an individual right of making an autonomous decision, there should be limits to the applicability and relevance of such individual rights. This is because scenarios may emerge whereby common good has to prevail over the existing individual rights. Such a phenomenon may be observed in scenarios where a patient may be forced to be subjected to a given clinical intervention based on the diagnosis conducted by the patients irrespective of the opinion or the personal wishes of such patients. This is because the ethical theories demand that healthcare professionals should undertake the right decisions necessary for the common good and wellbeing of the patients (Whitehead, Herbertson, Hamric, & Fisher, 2015). Therefore, this implies that such healthcare professionals should always ensure that common good prevails over individual rights in all the undertaken healthcare-related decisions. This is because common good will always be supported by the applicable ethics and morals guiding the routine practices of the health professionals. Therefore, caution should always be exercised to ensure that individual rights do not trump the common good.
References
Doherty, R. F., &Purtilo, R. B. (2015). Ethical dimensions in the health professions . Elsevier Health Sciences.
Kulju, K., Stolt, M., Suhonen, R., &Leino-Kilpi, H. (2016). Ethical competence: A concept analysis. Nursing ethics , 23 (4), 401-412.
Milliken, A. (2018). Nurse ethical sensitivity: An integrative review. Nursing ethics , 25 (3), 278-303.
Pozgar, G. D. (2019). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals . Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Whitehead, P. B., Herbertson, R. K., Hamric, A. B., & Fisher, J. M. (2015). Moral distress among healthcare professionals: Report of an institution‐wide survey. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 47 (2), 117-125.
