1
Running Head: Ethics And Law For Health Professionals
7
Ethics And Law For Health Professionals
ETHICS AND LAW FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
Table of Contents
Case study 2 3
Case study 4 4
Case study 5 5
Reference List 7
Case study 2
Consent for the medical treatment of patients who are under 18 years of age is generally provided by parents or guardians in Australia. However, there are circumstances in which patients under the age of 18 can consent to their own medical treatment. While in many cases it is preferable to obtain the consent of both the child and the parent for medical treatment, there may be specific circumstances in which the best interests of the child or young person may be served without the parents’ consent.(Children and consent for medical treatment,2018).Especially, when the medical practitioner is of the opinion the patient is capable of understanding the nature, consequences and risks of the treatment and the treatment is in the best interests of the health and wellbeing of the child that opinion is co
oborated in writing by at least one other medical practitioner who has personally examined the child before the treatment was commenced(Children and consent for medical treatment,2018). In this case, the issue to be determined was whether a medical practitioner could provide contraceptive advice and prescribe contraceptives to a patient under the age of 16 years, without the prior knowledge or consent of her parents. In order to do so, the child or young person must have a ‘sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand what is proposed’. This is often refe
ed to as ‘Gillick competence’ or the ‘mature minor’ .(Children and consent for medical treatment,2018). Children and consent for medical treatment,2018).It is important that general practitioners are aware of the legal position with respect to consent to medical treatment of a child or young person, especially in circumstances in which the patient requests that their parents are not informed.(RACGP - The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, n.d). The Australian healthcare sector makes it necessary for people below 18 years of age to have prescription provided by a doctor or healthcare practitioner and only in that way, they will be provided with emergency contraception pill. However, there are plenty of legal and ethical principles associated with the matter that can be discussed and analyzed in the cu
ent section. In the opinion of Racgp , there should be information provided to a woman or a girl seeking emergency contraception. Thus, the nurse should provide information about usage and possible side effects of taking emergency contraception pill. However, she should also be entitled to keep the matter confidential. However, considering the age of Tara, it can be seen that she is minor and will not be able to control the entire situation on her own. Therefore, the ethical issue for the nurse is whether to disclose the information to her parents or keep the matter confidential as disclosure of the fact will lead to serious repercussions for Tara. Furthermore, another ethical issue involves side effects of taking the pill as Tara will encounter a number of hormonal changes in here body which will cause problems in her menstrual cycle as well as nausea or vomiting ,dizziness ,Fatigue, Headache could be the side effects.(Morning-after pill - Mayo Clinic, XXXXXXXXXXAccording to Childrenbychoice , children in Australia above the age of 16 years of age have the right to confidentiality. Thus, considering the age of Tara, it can be stated that she is entitled to right to privacy and thus, the legal binding for the nurse is to not let her parents know of the situation. Also, as per the statement of Tara, she would be expelled from her house on such situation and therefore, the nurse should maintain confidentiality. However,If Tara is not Gillick competent and is deemed to lack the capacity to consent to a healthcare intervention, then any valid and lawful consent must be given on her behalf by someone with parental responsibility or by the court. In all cases, the proxy decision maker has a duty to keep the child's best interests at the heart of any decision, and the child should be involved in the decision-making process as far as possible.Thus, it is important for the nurse to analyze the situation well and decide whether to disclose the information or maintain privacy. (Mantzourani et al. 2019).
Case study 4
Justin is a young person while Mara has responsibility of others. Therefore, it is a highly ethical dilemma for the nurse to decide who to save in the given scenario.
The first ethical dilemma for the nurse is how to abide by her duty of care and contribute her best for ensuring health and well-being of patients diagnosed with Covid19. As per Betterhealth (2021), the Australian healthcare sector has been equipped with shared decision-making where different healthcare professionals indulge in decision-making to come to a common conclusion for health and well-being of the people. During the peak of the pandemic, it is possible that doctors will be required to assess a person’s eligibility for treatment based on a ‘capacity to benefit quickly’ basis. As such, some of the most unwell patients may be denied access to treatment such as intensive care or artificial ventilation. (Hostiuc et al., XXXXXXXXXXif people with asthma do contract the virus, they may be at higher risk of complications from COVID-19 than they are from other respiratory infections such as the flu so , Justin should be given more priority to avoid his complications. (COVID-19 and asthma: Risks and precautions, n.d.). In the event that two patients have the same estimated survivability, the scoring protocols give younger people better odds of getting treatment, with the “lowest priority” given to patients 85 and older which supports that Justin is younger and has more life to live.(Baker & Fink, 2020).Also,to ensure that those who have yet to live that length of life are prioritised over those who have already managed to do so. It has an intuitive appeal: why shouldn’t those who have not had an opportunity to lead a life of decent duration be prefe
ed to those who have already done so? . the principle of fair opportunity to live a life is rooted in the idea that a very old person has had a life, middle aged people have had the chance at part of a life. (Archard & Caplan, XXXXXXXXXXThe ethical issue pivoting around the given scenario is that both Justin and Mara have been suffering from Covid19 and it is possible to save only one of them (Haahr et al XXXXXXXXXXUsing the patient’s age is controversial. On one hand, taking age into consideration seems to problematically suggest that young people’s lives are worth more than old people’s lives. Younger patients have more to lose when the arc of their life is threatened to be cut short, and thus they have a greater claim to treatment on the basis of need.
(Antiel et al., 2020).Therefore ,it needs to apply specific moral criteria for situations of crisis by implementing an allocation strategy to maximize survival after hospital discharge and the number of life years saved with this thought in mind. Finally, beyond developing step-wise proactive strategies based on epidemiological assessments, clinical knowledge, and resource optimization, the process of handling a crisis of public health requires reflecting on values such as responsibility, inclusion criteria, transparency, sensitivity or rationality. The moral frameworks such as the consensus document described above will guide the healthcare workers and authorities in the difficult decision-making process that can eventually minimize collateral damage. (Rubio et al., 2020).
At the preliminary stage, it can be stated that healthcare professionals have a social responsibility to meet and therefore, Justin should be given priority in this regard. In theory, maximising the number of lives saved without taking account of quality of life can increase fairness for vulnerable populations. Ensuring that each patient is assessed individualy and the results used to make a transparent, evidence based prognosis. Additionally, triage decisions should be made by independent triage teams that include relevant medical experts, legal counsel, and health system administrators. These teams are responsible for repeatedly assessing patients’ priority. (Peterson Assistant Professor et al., n.d.) Most of this guidance is infused with the ethical principle ‘save the most lives’. Saving as many lives as possible is a worthy goal, but this principle can occlude the consideration of patients’ legal rights—rights that are not suspended in a crisis. So even if the principle is used as the primary touchstone, it should be: ‘save the most lives whilst respecting the legal rights of the patient.’ (BMJ, XXXXXXXXXXThis pressing dilemma involves trade-offs of various factors, such as the survival probability of the patient, the number of remaining life-years if treated, and other background information that need to be taken into consideration. Justin is single and still has most to live and achieve his goal In life . On the other hand, Mara is a schoolteacher and also takes care of two children and thus, has been independent and lived her life. The mother can take care of the two children being a part time worker .In this regard, Justin can be provided with the ventilation first. Therefore, the second ethical dilemma for the nurse is whether to save the person with lesser risk of life in comparison to an individual who is unlikely to survive. As influenced by Qld (2021), the nurse should indulge in a detailed conversation with family members about health risks of both the person. However, considering the factor that Justin is single and does not have any family member, there is not anyone to provide consent on his part and he is still proposed to live and have a family.thus, Justin should automatically be subjected to avail the ventilation system.
Case study 5
An advance care directive is a legally binding document that outlines a patient’s directions and/or preferences in regards to medical treatment. It is used in the event of incapacitation where the patient does not have the decision-making capacity to communicate their wishes. (Advance Care Directives: Explanation | Ausmed, n.d.).In the ACT , the advacnced care directive is governed by the Medical treatment (Health Directions ACT 2006)., Under Australian legislation and common law, all patients with decision-making capacity have the right to make informed decisions about medical treatment and must give consent to any treatment they receive (Haysom ,2019). Determining the patient's best interests involves more than simply considering the risks and benefits of a proposed treatment. It must consider an individual's past and present wishes and values. (Ba
y & Docherty, 2018).Ha
y might have some decision making capacity so the treatment of antibiotic should be taken into consideration if he wishes to. He anticipated in the past, he wanted to see his first grandchild and planned