I think that the nurse was acting in a moral manner towards the patient. She only wanted what was best for the patient, but I do believe she stepped outside of her professional boundaries by giving the patient the information. She should have ran it by the doctor first to see if they minded her doing that or maybe the doctor himself would have given the patient the info for her. In today's world the doctor does have the final word about the info the patient receives but I don't necessarily agree with that. In some cases I've seen, the nurse is more knowledgeable than the doctor so the doctor should be open to all options if confronted with them. I believe that Michael's consent was informed because that is all he knew at that time.
The nurse was not morally wrong for wanting the patient to know about other treatment options. The nurse was only acting in the patients best interest but informing him of all options available, even if those options aren't offered by the hospital. In Kant's perspective, the nurse was only treating the patient as she would want to be treated. She was however wrong in the contract sense that it is in the physicians scope of practice to suggest alternative treatment options when others have failed. However, I don't believe this makes the nurse morally in the wrong in providing the best care to her patient, which is ultimately what her job entails. Unfortunately, the patient did consent to chemotherapy even if it was the only option the physician provided. It is up to the patient to select a physician based on their ethical and moral values, and the patient may have been better off asking up front if the physician supported alternative treatments.
I believe that patients should have all options given to them during their time of illness. Nurse L was morally correct for giving the patient the information for a different treatment. The patient not the physician has the final word on any coarse of treatment or information received for alternative treatments. At times, patients ask mulitple quesions about things that they have heard or been told about from others.Doctors spend so little time with patients that the comfort level is gained by nurses to ask questions. Micheal G's consent would not have been informed consent if all options were not given to him, if the doctor was acting in his own benefit for notarity and publication and not in the best interest of the patient
I agree with David, I think the nurse was only acting in the best interest of the patient when giving him alternate therapy options. Instead of going straight to the patient, she should have ran all the info by the primary md on the case then left it up to him to decide what the next step would be. The only issue i see with that is that the MD would be making the final decision when it should be left up to the patient and his family. This in my mind would lead to the fact that the patient would not have been informed consent, since all the options were not given to him.
I think that the nurse was acting in a moral manner towards the patient. She only wanted what was best for the patient, but I do believe she stepped outside of her professional boundaries by giving the patient the information. She should have ran it by the doctor first to see if they minded her doing that or maybe the doctor himself would have given the patient the info for her. In today's world the doctor does have the final word about the info the patient receives but I don't necessarily agree with that. In some cases I've seen, the nurse is more knowledgeable than the doctor so the doctor should be open to all options if confronted with them. I believe that Michael's consent was informed because that is all he knew at that time.
ReplyDeleteThe nurse was not morally wrong for wanting the patient to know about other treatment options. The nurse was only acting in the patients best interest but informing him of all options available, even if those options aren't offered by the hospital. In Kant's perspective, the nurse was only treating the patient as she would want to be treated. She was however wrong in the contract sense that it is in the physicians scope of practice to suggest alternative treatment options when others have failed. However, I don't believe this makes the nurse morally in the wrong in providing the best care to her patient, which is ultimately what her job entails. Unfortunately, the patient did consent to chemotherapy even if it was the only option the physician provided. It is up to the patient to select a physician based on their ethical and moral values, and the patient may have been better off asking up front if the physician supported alternative treatments.
ReplyDeleteI believe that patients should have all options given to them during their time of illness. Nurse L was morally correct for giving the patient the information for a different treatment. The patient not the physician has the final word on any coarse of treatment or information received for alternative treatments. At times, patients ask mulitple quesions about things that they have heard or been told about from others.Doctors spend so little time with patients that the comfort level is gained by nurses to ask questions. Micheal G's consent would not have been informed consent if all options were not given to him, if the doctor was acting in his own benefit for notarity and publication and not in the best interest of the patient
ReplyDeleteI agree with David, I think the nurse was only acting in the best interest of the patient when giving him alternate therapy options. Instead of going straight to the patient, she should have ran all the info by the primary md on the case then left it up to him to decide what the next step would be. The only issue i see with that is that the MD would be making the final decision when it should be left up to the patient and his family. This in my mind would lead to the fact that the patient would not have been informed consent, since all the options were not given to him.
ReplyDelete