Read The Unit 3 Ethics Case And Answer The Questions 275802

Read The Unit 3 Ethics Case And Answer The Questions Associated Wit

Read the Unit 3 Ethics Case and answer the questions associated with the scenario. The case involves complex ethical considerations surrounding truth-telling, patient autonomy, informed consent, and the responsibilities of healthcare providers. The scenario centers on Annie, a woman diagnosed with colon carcinoma, who was kept unaware of her true prognosis by her husband and a physician, raising questions about ethical practices in medical disclosure and patient rights. This analysis will explore whether the decision to withhold information was justified, whether the physician should have disclosed the seriousness of Annie's illness, identify the ethical dilemmas involved, and support conclusions with relevant scholarly sources.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma presented in the case revolves around the tension between providing truthful information to patients and respecting their autonomy versus the desire to shield them from distressing truths. In the scenario, Annie's husband, Mark, requests that the healthcare provider not disclose her diagnosis of colon cancer, fearing loss of hope. The physician agrees to this request, and Annie remains unaware of her serious condition until her death. From an ethical standpoint, this situation raises critical questions about honesty, beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for patient autonomy. This essay will argue that, in general, healthcare providers have a moral obligation to disclose truthful health information to ensure informed decision-making, but cultural, emotional, and individual factors may sometimes justify withholding certain information.

Patient autonomy is a core principle in biomedical ethics, emphasizing the right of patients to make informed decisions regarding their health (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Respecting autonomy requires that healthcare providers share all pertinent information about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options, unless the patient explicitly requests otherwise or if disclosure causes significant harm. In this case, Annie's expressed desire to reschedule her appointment and her unawareness of her condition suggest that she was not fully informed of her prognosis, which limits her capacity for autonomous decision-making (Jonsen, Siegler, & Winslade, 2015).

One might argue that Mark's request to withhold the diagnosis was based on a paternalistic desire to protect his wife from emotional distress. Paternalism in healthcare involves overriding patient autonomy for perceived benefit, which has been debated extensively. Although paternalism was historically prevalent, contemporary bioethics largely advocates for transparency and patient engagement. Studies indicate that most patients prefer honesty about their health status to prepare psychologically and make informed choices (Friedman et al., 2020). However, cultural factors may influence perceptions of disclosure; in some societies, families or physicians may prioritize protecting loved ones from distress, which complicates the ethical landscape (Fitzgerald & Goold, 2020).

The physician’s decision to comply with Mark’s request aligns with a paternalistic approach, potentially justified by the patient's emotional well-being. Nonetheless, ethical guidelines from the American Medical Association (AMA) emphasize the importance of honesty and full disclosure unless there are compelling reasons to withhold information, such as imminent harm or patient requests (AMA, 2020). Furthermore, research suggests that withholding critical information can lead to mistrust, emotional trauma, and suboptimal health outcomes (Olick & Rowe, 2017). In Annie's case, her explicit question about her health and her subsequent death without fully understanding her prognosis suggest a breach of her right to know and participate in healthcare decisions.

There are additional ethical considerations concerning beneficence and non-maleficence, which compel healthcare providers to act in the patient’s best interest and minimize harm. While preventing distress might seem compassionate, it conflicts with the principles of honesty and respect for autonomy that are central to ethical medical practice. Studies have demonstrated that patients who are fully informed tend to cope better emotionally and pursue appropriate treatments (Sulmasy et al., 2013). Conversely, lack of disclosure can deprive patients of opportunities for advance care planning, spiritual preparation, and meaningful life choices.

Given the ethical principles involved, it is generally argued that the physician should have disclosed the diagnosis and prognosis to Annie, respecting her right to be fully informed. The principle of informed consent is foundational to ethical medicine, requiring that patients understand their condition and potential outcomes to make autonomous choices. The physician’s withholding of critical information, even at the request of Mark, can be viewed as ethically problematic because it undermines Annie’s capacity for autonomous decision-making and violates standards articulated in bioethics literature (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).

In conclusion, while intentions to protect patients from distress are understandable, withholding truthful information about a life-threatening diagnosis is ethically problematic. The physician should have prioritized transparency and honesty, ensuring that Annie’s rights to be informed and to participate in her healthcare decisions were upheld. Healthcare professionals must navigate complex ethical landscapes, respecting cultural sensitivities, but ultimately maintaining the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence to provide ethically sound care.

References

• American Medical Association. (2020). Code of Medical Ethics. AMA Journal of Ethics.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Fitzgerald, G., & Goold, S. D. (2020). Cultural influences on medical decision making. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(1), 44–48.
• Friedman, E. A., et al. (2020). Patient preferences for honesty and disclosure. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(4), 713–718.
• Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2015). Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Olick, R. S., & Rowe, J. (2017). The impact of nondisclosure on patient trust and health outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 32(4), 448–453.
• Sulmasy, D. L., et al. (2013). Disclosure of terminal prognosis and its psychological impact. Archives of Internal Medicine, 173(1), 62–68.