Ethical Implications of a Breach of Confidentiality Confidentiality is the right of every patient. According to various laws, it is unacceptable to disclose the medical information to a third party without the consent from the patient. Law protects patient's right for keeping their vital information confidently. Healthcare staff should respect and protect patient's confidentiality. According to American nurses association disclosing patient's details without their permission is considering breach of confidentiality (ANA, 2012).
This act should be null and void, since a physician should not be allowed to deny aid to one in need. Even though the Hippocratic Oath is not taken up by all physicians, it still should be followed, since it contains guidelines of how to be a “good” physician. It states in the Hippocratic Oath that a physician is “to practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try and avoid harming them.” In other words, a physician must not harm a patient, whether it is making mistakes or denying them aid. When someone is in need of medical assistance, a physician should not deny it just because he does not want to. Their top priority as a doctor is to help others, and one is not helping someone by denying them aid.
It challenges trust between doctor and patient. We expect physicians to heal and preserve life, not to kill on request. I reply that I want to be able to trust my doctor to do what is best for me in every situation. I would not ask a doctor to do anything illegal, but if physician-assisted death were permitted by law, I would not want to be abandoned in my final hours. The main reason I’m against assisted suicide is Its God's place to decide the time and place of a person's death.
Under federal and some state laws medical facilities need consent from patients or, in the event of incompetency of the patient, informed consent of the legal surrogate. The Supreme Court has not dealt with “quality of life issues” and appears to only condone active or passive “euthanasia” (not legally defined) when there is evidence that consent has been obtained from the competent patient or legal surrogate of an incompetent patient.There are many pros and cons to euthanasia and I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. The most debated are the moral, ethical, and rights issues. Some of these pros and cons argued are the right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a
For example, many people against this decision claim that it is not ethical due to the fundamental tenet of medical ethics which is “Do no harm” (Bender 37).This decision is very ethical because what is not ethical is letting an innocent person die instead of taking the route of assisted suicide. If the person suffering was a relative of another person will they think twice not to because it is their loved ones suffering. By defining ethics it is related to a moral principle in which many differ from principles and standards. Another debate can be that assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. Assisted suicide is a choice which the constitution does support freedom of choice.
I think there are many reasons why a personalised induction is more effective. Firstly, I think it is very important to ascertain the mental health of the individual. A Hypnotherapist must never work on anyone who has or has had a psychosis. If an individual is on any kind of psychological medication or has a history of mental health, then the hypnotherapist will need to get written permission from the individual’s Dr to carry out any therapy. This letter must also state that the patient is not psychotic.
An adult patient, who has mental capacity, can give or withhold consent to a medical treatment for any reason, either rational, irrational or non-existent, or no reason at all. However, there are cases in which competent adult patients have withheld their consent to medical treatment and yet doctors and judges have overruled the patient’s refusal to treatment because of the decision and behaviour of they make which may be called ‘irrational.’ This challenges the primacy of autonomy of the patient and suggests that there may be other ethical principles ‘at work’ behind the veil of patient autonomy. I would argue that behind the deontological façade of autonomy rest two types of conflict: internal and external. Internal conflicts relates to the implicit tensions on how we define autonomy. In exercising an irrational decision, the courts may overrule it as not autonomous.
Other physicians who argue that placebos are unethical do not disagree they can help, but believe the patient should know what they are receiving. This debate over placebos will continue until there are laws forbidding the use of placebos without the patients consent. This is specifically why all countries need to act on making these laws. Making laws that pertain to the use of placebos will not only stop unethical use but also increase trust in physician-patient relationships and provide more means of safety for the patients. One of the biggest issues with physicians prescribing placebos is they are doing so without even telling their patients what it is.
Kjell Asplund and Mona Britton, authors of Ethics of life support in patients with severe stroke, argue that there is a specific protocol that should be followed in order to deal with the multitude of ethical complications coma patients introduce. I disagree with this argument, because I think that the quantification of one’s life is an inhumane and ineffective method of treating patients. As an idealistic student aspiring to pursue allopathic medicine, I believe that the field I immerse myself in should not be an environment bogged down with impediments to moral action. Instead of a rigid method, I think that a case-by-case method remains the most appropriate action for patients with severe brain malfunctions. Before we delve into the moral implications surrounding care for stroke patients, it is important to understand what a stroke is.
In this case, there is clearly a special relationship: the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient. In particular, Blataslav and Dr Corinthian owed a duty to Alphonso in taking reasonable care as to avoid foreseeable injury. However, it is also necessary to establish that Alphonso had relied upon the information, and that such reliance was reasonable. As he has stated, Alphonso would not have undergone the procedure had he been aware of the risks involved. It can, therefore, be reasonably deduced that he would rely upon such information as fact, and not a mere representation.