SCENARIO: An individual is brought into an ED with many injuries post car wreck. He had no identification and he was alone when his car went off the road and crashed. Surgery will be necessary, but the extent of the injuries are not yet known. Although he is in excruciating pain, the ED physician orders only minimal pain medication. He wants the patient to be coherent and able to assist in the decision-making necessary for his care rather than be comfortable and unable to participate in the decision-making process. What are the ethical concerns raising by this practice?
Argue BOTH sides of the issue, and include ethical theories/principles.
Please include paternalism vs. patient autonomy and the theory of "first do no harm" and the theory of beneficence.
Hope this helps you.
Thanks for using BrainMass.
The position of an ED physician is unique as he/she must "respond promptly and expertly, without prejudice or partiality, to the need for emergency medical care" (American College of Emergency Physician [ACEP], 2009, "Principles of ethics", para. 2) as well as "respect the rights and strive to protect the best interests of their patients" (ACEP, 2009, "Principles of ethics", para. 2) including respecting the patient's autonomy. In this scenario, by providing quick respond to acute illness and injuries the ED physician complies with the theory of beneficence as the treatment prescribed prevents or minimizes pain and suffering (ACEP, 2009).
The dilemma stands on the facts that even though the patient needs surgery, the extent of the injuries is not known thus the situation can be considered either urgent or life threatening by the physician. In this scenario is clear that the ED physician considered this an urgent situation where the treatment could be delayed without serious harm until the ...
The solution involves a detailed discussion of the paternalism, patient autonomy and the principle of 'do not harm' ethical theories/principles as they apply to the delivery of care in emergency situations. The implications of the ED practitioner's decision and the patient's right are also included in the discussion.
Patient Rights and Autonomy
In the following three cases, indicate whether you think it would be justified to overcome the autonomy of the patient under the principle of beneficence and why.
1. In the intensive care unit, you are working on a patient in a very unstable state. The woman and her children (who were all killed) had been in an accident. It is clear that further emotional trauma would be disastrous to the patient and may cause her death. In a lucid moment, she looks at you and asks, "How are my children?" Is this an instance when therapeutic privilege seems reasonable? Whether you decide yes or no to the therapeutic privilege question, write a sentence that you think would be the most appropriate answer for the patient. (2 to 3 Paragraphs).
2.You are working late and you enter the patient's room to find that she has climbed out on the window ledge. She appears to be crying and tells you to leave her alone. (1 Paragraph)
3.Your elderly patient hates to have the bed rails up and tells you to leave them down. ( 1 Paragraph)
PLEASE Cite Work, TY