i dont think anyone has posted this yet...but this is the golden link for bioethics topics:
http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/index.html
hope it helps!
http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/index.html
hope it helps!
yeah but now there are other options...such as synthetic blood options. Have you heard about how certain ambulance companies have gotten in trouble for testing out these new synthetic blood projects on trauma patients who were unaware they were not receiving real blood...pretty interesting.
i dont think anyone has posted this yet...but this is the golden link for bioethics topics:
http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/index.html
hope it helps!
In your expereince, does this particular situation happen frequently, or are these just contrived examples with no "right" answer meant to stress out interviewees?
so do you tell the kid despite the parents' objections that they're dying or are sick?
Sometimes situations are not that clear. Its not always as simple as having a nice and clear signed paper with designated wishes stated, or even a single clear physician order. There can be conflicts and lack of clarity. It is when situations do not fall nicely into the rules that one has to really work through them carefully. But for many circumstances, I agree with you.
here's another one: your patient experienced fetal loss and then tells you she has been beaten by her significant other in the past. she will not say that that's why she lost the baby, and she is very anxious that you do not report him for fear of retribution. what do you do? what if you reasonably think that it indeed was child/fetal abuse, which is reportable?
i always thought it was only in cases of child abuse, where the child is your patient, that you have the right to report abuse. i thought if it were a domestic violence case outside of your scope, you didn't have the right to report it. however, the case you're speaking of may not involve patient confidentiality because it was between the mother and father, not having to do with the child directly. maybe someone else knows more about the laws on this.If it was abuse- report it. You're required to. Not only that, but not doing so is just obviously wrong.
How would you feel if a doctor went against your wishes and performed an operation on your child?i'd agree with you on the parents and child since the child is your patient. you have a duty to your patient not the parents.
on the actual patient refusing, i'd inform them of the risks of not receiving the transfusion i.e. death or debilitation, and strongly urge them to take the transfusion. in the end, they have the right to deny medical treatment, just as there are DNR orders (another grey area). shrugs, we can discuss this more; i just don't see a compelling reason to force a patient to receive a transfusion when he/she is well informed.
i always thought it was only in cases of child abuse, where the child is your patient, that you have the right to report abuse.
I think the best way to answer these questions is to give a firm answer (and don't always go for the answer which seems right) but also address the other side.
For example, I've actually had someone ask the following:
Imagine that two men need surgery immediately for the same problem. One is an old man who arrives and the other is a man in his 20s who arrives 15 minutes later. Which one should receive the treatment?
Point is, there's no way you're going to "win" in this scenario. It's best to take a stance, explain why, and also address the other side.
Good post. Since the kid wasn't born yet, I think if the mother was under your care for any reason you'd be required to report it.
For another twist, what if you knew that reporting the case might put the woman in even more danger of her abuser?
i dont think anyone has posted this yet...but this is the golden link for bioethics topics:
http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/index.html
hope it helps!
The drunk colleague: If patients were poised to be immediately harmed, I would intervene. Not, "Hey, you're drunk, go home" but more "you don't look too well. are you sure you don't want to go home? i can call dr. Y to cover for you." If that didn't work, then I would involve some higher-ups. If the person did go home, I'd later report it anonymously to the medical director's office. That stuff is not tolerated and would probably be dealt with pretty swiftly. So a delicate balance of patient safety vs. saving face/self-preservation, but of course 100% patient safety always wins.
right, that's what i was thinking. that one was easy. it's the child that seems to get trickier.
Yes, it was. And it was oh so dramatic.wasnt this a greys anatomy episode?
You ALWAYS have the RIGHT to report abuse....heck you can report abuse just by overhearing someone talking about abusing their child.yourmom25 said:i always thought it was only in cases of child abuse, where the child is your patient, that you have the right to report abuse.
Oh, is Grey's Anatomy a medical show? I admit I've only seen 4 episodes but I thought it was just about sex.wasnt this a greys anatomy episode?
Oh, is Grey's Anatomy a medical show? I admit I've only seen 4 episodes but I thought it was just about sex.
Also, about the patient who has HIV and asks you not to tell their partner.
Ethically, I think you would have to tell the people, but I am not sure what the real protocol is...
There have been several court cases where people were convicted for having AIDS and sleeping with others and not telling them. It may be necessary to prove "intent to transmit" though. Anyway, if a patient has informed you who they have slept with I would think there is at the very least an ethical obligation to inform the partners that one of their sexual partners may have had AIDS. As far as I know, HIPAA only applies to a patient's personal information. By informing their partners without naming your patient I don't see how that would be a HIPAA violation, and even if it was there is no court on this side of the world that would convict a doctor for something like this {opinion}. It may be easy for them to figure out who it is (e.g. if they've only ever slept with your patient), but that's really not a doctor's concern. To do nothing is to be complicit in their unethical ways. Patients DO have a right to privacy and a certain amount of confidentiality, but doctors are not priests. I say do everything you possibly can to preserve your patient's privacy, but you cannot compromise when it comes to public safety or the safety of any other people. What if a patient came in with a highly-infectious airborne disease? That patient would be immediately secluded and those people to come in contact with them would be tested...we wouldn't be sitting around debating whether people should know about their condition or not. I think the same thing should be true of AIDS patients; if you know they've come in contact with someone they must be tested whether the patient is willing to inform them or not.The conflict here is between keeping information confidential and the desire to protect someone from serious harm. With HIPAA, I suspect some people are being even more cautious about releasing private information. On the other hand, federal regulations aside, some states permit the disclosure of HIV status under certain circumstances and to particular parties. In one state that I'm familiar with, one is permitted (but not required) to tell the patient's spouse but other partners are not included in the law. I guess the legislature presumes that a patient is having sex with a marriage partner but other relationships are not recognized by law and it would be hard to define relationships that would justify "telling".
i love you
I would think there is at the very least an ethical obligation to inform the partners that one of their sexual partners may have had AIDS.
All these question about morality, values,...etc. Which would you save, the convict or old lady...etc. Am I wrong for thinking that I would save the person with the higher probability of survival.
Well, what is "objective" is very subjective in these ethical matters...that's kinda the point. You see an old life as being "worth less" than a young life due to the number of years left....who says that's objective? Ok, there's my criticism, now I'll support your position >).All these question about morality, values,...etc. Which would you save, the convict or old lady...etc. Am I wrong for thinking that I would save the person with the higher probability of survival. The convict can be the most evil person in the world, but I cannnot judge his life as less than another. All life is equal in the eyes of God, so I would take a much more objective approach and decide based on which person would likely to survive. Does anybody else feel this way?
The difference between reporting child abuse and statutory rape is clear when you have the proper information.I really don't know. There are so many laws regarding juveniles I'm just not sure. And they also vary by state. Some states require that the parents of underage girls must be notified of an abortion. In that case, I think they would find out pretty quickly who got her pregnant and justice would follow its course.
I know that as a physician you have to notify the authorities if you suspect child abuse. So I don't know why it would be different for sexual abuse/underage rape. (I know that adults have the option to press charges or not.) But I'm not sure about consensual statuatory rape. There are just so many variables.
In LA, you can send someone an anonymous e-card that says, "you've got AIDS." www.inspotla.org I think that's a pretty good idea.The ethical obligation is to keep confidential information that has been shared with you in confidence. You can, and should, encourage the patient to share this information with others who may have become infected due to contact with the patient. (sex or sharing of needles, etc) If HIV-AIDS is reportable to the health department you should report it. (I don't know the laws in every jursidiction.) You should also find out if the health department in your area does "contact tracing" to inform the patient's contacts that they may have been exposed and should consider getting tested. This usually means contacting the patient you reported, getting contact information and going out and finding these others and informing them that they may have been exposed (without saying who may have exposed them -- although someone with only one partner may figure it out pretty quickly).
1) patient should know the diagnosis. i don't see how there would be any dilemma here, but i'm inexperienced.
How can you not tell the patient? They have to know these things in order to make an informed decision regarding their surgery. That's why it's called "informed consent."I would disagree with you in certain situations. Consider the following situation. A patient has pancreas cancer and undergoes a Whipple surgery. His five year survival chance is 20%. Do you tell him that he is most likely going to die within 5 years? I would tell the family but i definitely wouldn't tell the patient.
How can you not tell the patient? They have to know these things in order to make an informed decision regarding their surgery. That's why it's called "informed consent."