In the case study provided, the mother of the 14- year old adolescent came home from work to find the child, not in a healthy state. The mother decided to take the child to the hospital to have the kid evaluated by the doctor. All the physical examination conducted by the doctors showed the kid was in a healthy state besides the symptoms that the mother was pointing out. Neurological examination revealed that the kid was suffering from ataxia. There was a break out of the West Nile virus at the time this incident happened, and the kid had had a few mosquito bites days before these symptoms. The kid's mother was convinced that the child was suffering from the virus and she asked the pediatrician to evaluate the kid for the virus. The patient’s doctor also was concerned by the kid’s health condition and decided to carry out an evaluation.
During a personal interview, the kid decided to disclose the information to the physician as long as it was held in confidence. The doctor agrees that whatever the kid said would remain between them. The kid disclosed that he had purchased the dextromethorphan on the internet and consumed them. On evaluating the situation, the physician found out that the kid was suffering from dextromethorphan indigestion.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In this case, the kid’s pediatrician should violate the minor patient’s autonomy in the interest of beneficence. Minor patient’s autonomy requires the doctors to hold the information provided to them by people who are not of adult age yet in confidence. In most countries, it is held that an adolescent can make decisions or at least take part in decisions that affect them. The doctor can violate the minors’ autonomy in the case where they find that the minor does not prove sufficient maturity to make medical decisions. In our case, the kid does not show enough maturity to make decisions about personal health. Purchasing drugs on the internet and using them without being ill was not a profound decision. Holding the information from the parent and the doctor at first was not intelligent either. The pediatrician should mention the situation to the parent as an act of good faith.
I choose to argue that the doctor should tell the parent than remaining silent to hold the minor's confidentiality. As explained above the medical legislation allow minors to take part in making decisions that affect their health. The doctors are required to hold the minor's information in confidentiality. However, in some instances, the pediatrician can evaluate the capacity of a minor to make decisions on matters about health and decide on to inform the parent or not. That why I decided that the doctor should tell the parent in our case compared to violating the principle of beneficence by respecting the minor's autonomy by not breaking the confidence of the minor.
In this case, the doctor should not evaluate any other option besides the fact that the core principles are conflicting. The most important principle is to ensure that the clients treated and well informed. In this case, the mother is part of the child life, and the best decision is to inform the mother of the situation at hand. If the doctor does not advise the mother, they will be forced to lie for them to conceal the information provided by the kid. In this instance, I would not explore another option as a pediatrician rather I would violate the kid’s autonomy.
