Please Write A Two-Page Paper With Your Reaction To The Foll ✓ Solved

Please Write A Two Page Paper With Your Reaction To The Following Scen

Please write a TWO-PAGE PAPER with your reaction to the following scenario: "After examining Mr. J, Dr. Z informs him that he needs surgery. Mr. J replies that he would like to have a second opinion. Dr. Z, agitated, tells the patient to “go ahead and ask another doctor for a second opinion, but I don’t think you will hear anything different." Has Dr. Z acted ethically? Explain your answer. Your answer should be well-formed using the APA style format, including two current high-quality resources within the last five years, you can use your book as a primary resource. Use grammarly.com and use the library resources from your course shell to support your answer. Include a cover page, an introduction, a conclusion, and a references list page.

Paper For Above Instructions

Cover Page

Title: Ethical Considerations in Patient Autonomy and Second Opinions

Student Name: [Your Name]

Course: [Course Name]

Date: [Submission Date]

Introduction

The scenario involving Mr. J and Dr. Z raises significant questions about ethics in medical practice, particularly in relation to patient autonomy and the responsibilities of healthcare practitioners. Dr. Z’s reaction to Mr. J’s request for a second opinion reflects an ethical dilemma that must be analyzed in the context of medical ethics, particularly the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence. This paper will evaluate whether Dr. Z acted ethically by considering the implications of patient autonomy, professionalism, and communication.

Understanding Patient Autonomy

Patient autonomy is a core principle in medical ethics that emphasizes the patient's right to make informed decisions about their treatment (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). In the situation presented, Mr. J expresses a desire for a second opinion regarding the need for surgery, which is a standard practice and a fundamental right of patients. By seeking additional information, Mr. J is exercising his autonomy and seeking to be an active participant in his healthcare decisions.

Dr. Z's initial response to Mr. J's request demonstrates a lack of respect for the patient's autonomy. Instead of encouraging Mr. J's proactive involvement in his healthcare, Dr. Z dismisses the notion of a second opinion with a sardonic remark. This reaction not only undermines Mr. J's autonomy but also conveys an attitude that could be perceived as paternalistic, suggesting that Dr. Z believes his opinion should be accepted without question (Kenny, 2020). Healthcare providers must respect patient autonomy and foster open communication, which includes validating the patient's concerns about their treatment options.

The Role of Professionalism in Healthcare

Professionalism in healthcare is critical as it governs the behaviors and attitudes of practitioners toward their patients. A professional demeanor involves listening to patients, responding appropriately to their concerns, and creating an environment where patients feel valued and understood (Ruhl et al., 2021). Dr. Z's response lacks professionalism; by showing agitation and dismissiveness, he creates a barrier to effective communication and undermines the trust necessary for a therapeutic patient-provider relationship.

Furthermore, healthcare professionals are expected to provide support and guidance, particularly when patients are contemplating serious medical decisions such as surgery. Instead of providing reassurance or information to help Mr. J understand the value of a second opinion, Dr. Z's response may generate anxiety and reluctance on Mr. J’s part to seek further consultation (Schneider et al., 2019). This situation highlights the importance of professionalism and effective communication in promoting positive patient outcomes.

Non-Maleficence and Patient Rights

The principle of non-maleficence, which mandates that healthcare providers must not inflict harm on patients, is also relevant in the context of this scenario (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). While Dr. Z may believe that his recommendation is in Mr. J's best interest, his dismissive attitude towards the patient's request can be seen as a potential source of harm, as it might discourage Mr. J from seeking a second opinion altogether. Patients have the right to seek additional perspectives on their healthcare, especially when faced with significant medical interventions.

By not providing Mr. J the space to explore his options, Dr. Z potentially causes psychological harm by invalidating Mr. J's concerns and discouraging him from being an involved participant in his healthcare decisions (Kenny, 2020). This underscores the necessity for healthcare providers to advocate for patient rights and to recognize the value of collaborative decision-making.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Dr. Z's behavior towards Mr. J raises ethical concerns regarding respect for patient autonomy, professionalism, and adherence to the principle of non-maleficence. By expressing agitation and dismissing Mr. J's request for a second opinion, Dr. Z not only failed to uphold the ethical standards of medical practice but also hindered the therapeutic relationship by not supporting Mr. J's rights as a patient. It is essential for healthcare professionals to foster a culture of open communication, support patient autonomy, and demonstrate professionalism to ensure that patients are empowered in their healthcare decisions. Ethical medical practice requires that healthcare providers engage with patients on their terms, facilitating collaboration and understanding in the decision-making process.

References

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
  • Kenny, N. P. (2020). Patient autonomy: a misused term in healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(9), 585-589.
  • Ruhl, L. et al. (2021). The importance of professionalism in healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Management, 66(4), 220-233.
  • Schneider, C. H., et al. (2019). Impact of physician attitudes on patient emergency care. Health Communication, 34(12), 1369-1376.
  • American Medical Association. (2021). Opinion 1.1.1 – Patient Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/patient-rights.
  • Aulisio, M. P., & Torke, A. M. (2018). The ethics of shared decision-making. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(10), 1846-1847.
  • Nussbaum, M. C., & Sen, A. (2020). The Quality of Life. Oxford University Press.
  • Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2018). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press.
  • Singer, P. (2019). Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  • Nelson, H. L. (2020). The patient's perspective: autonomy and the role of second opinions. Ethics & Behavior, 30(5), 354-364.

Related Assignments