Conduct A Case Study Analysis On Unapproved Treatments: Hone ✓ Solved

Conduct a case study analysis. Unapproved Treatments:Honey on

Conduct a case study analysis on unapproved treatments: Honey on the wound. Mr. Leroy, an 80-year-old male, has a large open wound on his foot. His son, a veterinarian, insists on using sterile honey and maggots for treatment, which raises concerns among the nursing staff. Dr. Keene, the physician, refuses this method, citing it as unapproved and necessitating further medical evaluation. The son then checks Mr. Leroy out of the nursing home, disregarding essential assessments.

Paper For Above Instructions

In this case study analysis, we will explore the ethical and medical implications of using unapproved treatments, specifically honey and maggots, on Mr. Leroy’s wound at Old Town Nursing Home (OTNH). The ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice will serve as a framework to assess the situation and analyze potential breaches of ethical decision-making principles.

Facts of the Case

The central facts of the case are as follows: Mr. Leroy is an elderly patient with a history of strokes, which impairs his ability to make decisions. He arrives at OTNH with a severely necrotic wound on his left foot. His son, a veterinarian, recommends an unconventional treatment involving honey and maggots to cleanse the wound, albeit without prior medical intervention at home. The nursing staff expresses valid concerns regarding the treatment's legitimacy and safety.

Dr. Keene determines that no approved treatment can be administered without adequate circulation checks and medical evaluation, leading to conflict with Mr. Leroy's son. The son's insistence on the treatment method raises questions about informed consent and ethical healthcare provisions, as he ultimately opts to discharge his father without necessary assessments.

Ethical Issues

There are multiple ethical issues arising from the proposed treatment. Firstly, autonomy is a key principle, which entitles patients and their families to make informed decisions about healthcare. However, it must be balanced against the medical advice received. In this case, Mr. Leroy’s son is insistent on using honey and maggots, potentially undermining the autonomy of the healthcare professionals who advocate for a medically sound approach. Hence, the imposition of unconventional treatments raises dilemmas regarding beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and nonmaleficence (to do no harm).

Utilizing unapproved treatments could lead to negative health consequences, further complicating Mr. Leroy’s existing medical conditions and possibly causing additional discomfort. Additionally, the question of justice emerges. Ethical care demands equal treatment regardless of the patient’s background; therefore, ensuring that such unconventional methods are scrutinized aligns with equitable healthcare standards.

Principles of Ethical Decision Making

Considering the ethical principles involved, there are both supported and potentially violated principles in this case. Beneficence and nonmaleficence are supported due to Dr. Keene's commitment to ensuring Mr. Leroy receives an appropriate medical evaluation before any treatment is administered. The refusal to apply unapproved therapies aligns with the principle of nonmaleficence, protecting the patient from potential harm that could arise from ineffective treatment.

Conversely, the autonomy of the son appears to be challenged given that his insistence is not coupled with the required medical evidence supporting the unapproved treatments. Therefore, ethical tension exists between respecting the family’s wishes and adhering to medical best practices.

Son's Insistence on Treatment Approach

Mr. Leroy’s son possibly insists on the honey and maggot treatment due to personal beliefs shaped by his background as a veterinarian. His professional experience may lead him to believe in the efficacy of these methods, yet without sufficient clinical data supporting their validity in human wound care, this insistence may lack a solid foundation. It can be posited that a strong emotional commitment to his father's health drives the son's demand for what he perceives as an acceptable treatment approach.

Alternatives and Elder Abuse Considerations

Alternatives in this scenario could have included engaging Mr. Leroy’s son in discussions about conventional treatment options and involving a wound care specialist to further explain the risks associated with his proposed methods. Additionally, exploring comprehensive wound care management, including proper dressings and potential antibiotic therapy, could have been more beneficial. This case does raise questions regarding elder abuse or neglect. The lack of previous treatment administered by the family could be seen as neglect, indicating a failure to provide necessary care for Mr. Leroy. A report to Adult Protective Services may have been warranted to ensure his safety and wellbeing.

Reflections and Recommendations

The encounter between the nursing staff and Mr. Leroy’s son highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making in healthcare. While respecting familial requests is important, medical professionals must prioritize patients’ health through evidence-based treatments. It is recommended that nursing homes implement strong protocols for assessing the validity and safety of unconventional treatments. Additionally, fostering communication between healthcare providers and family members could bridge knowledge gaps and potentially avert conflicts in care decisions.

In conclusion, the situation surrounding Mr. Leroy’s treatment warrants careful consideration of ethical principles and medical responsibilities. Ensuring that patients receive safe and effective treatments while affirming family involvement in care is critical for achieving balanced healthcare delivery.

References

  • Borkowski, N. (2011). Organizational behavior in health care (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
  • Buchbinder, S. B., & Shanks, N. H. (Eds.). (2012). Introduction to health care management (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
  • Là¤uchli, S., & Hafner, J. (2012). 13th symposium on modern wound therapy. EWMA Journal, 12(1), 68–69.
  • Lighter, D. E. (2011). Advanced performance improvement in health care: Principles and methods. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
  • Morrison, E. E. (2011). Ethics in health administration: A practical approach for decision makers (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
  • Mosqueda, L., Burnight, K., Liao, S., & Kemp, B. (2004). Advancing the field of elder mistreatment: A new model for integration of social and medical services. The Gerontologist, 44(5), 703–708.
  • National Center on Elder Abuse. (n.d.). Retrieved from [NCEA](https://ncea.acl.gov/).
  • Niles-Yokum, K., & Wagner, D. (2011). The aging networks: A guide to programs and services (7th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2010, April 23). How drugs are developed and approved. Retrieved from U.S. FDA website.
  • Wollina, U., Karte, K., Herold, C., & Looks, A. (2000). Biosurgery in wound healing: The renaissance of maggot therapy. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 14, 285–289.

Related Assignments