| Vitamin C: ascerbic ethical discussions. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 21355428 Owner: NLM Status: In-Process |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
The issue of a patient's rights to demand treatment has recently been raised by a dramatic case in which a patient made a remarkable recovery following the use of an unconventional treatment that the hospital staff initially refused to administer. The normal position in such cases is that the relatives can take part in a clinical decision but the medical staff are bound to make it according to a clinical assessment of the best interests of the patient. That assessment is only required to take into account what would be regarded as acceptable regimens of treatment for the patient's condition. There is no ethical or legal basis for the patient's relatives being able to demand any treatment that the clinical team do not consider indicated nor to demand a highly unconventional treatment The case therefore poses a problem. When should we allow ourselves to be persuaded to step outside the bounds of accepted medical practice at the urging of relatives or patients? There are plausible arguments that a demonstration of efficacy in a particular patient or some reputable evidence of probability of efficacy would both be good enough grounds. In addition, one could argue that where the patient's predicted clinical course is terminal, then desperate measures of unproven efficacy can be tried in that the balance of harm and benefit cannot be further worsened. The implication of the actual events in the case in question is that a certain humility in the light of the incompleteness of medical knowledge is always appropriate and an objective weighing of the facts of the case, free from prejudicial theoretical commitments, is needed in the face of medical uncertainty. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Grant Gillett |
Related Documents
:
|
21436658 - The medical educator, the discourse analyst, and the phonetician: a collaborative feedb... 21528738 - The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-susta... 21313868 - Medical school oath-taking: the moral controversy. 21409398 - Evaluation of the medical records system in an upcoming teaching hospital-a project for... 17257298 - Medical clinic facilities and doctor characteristics: what older rural men value. 19373238 - Effect of chronic kidney disease on individual and population medical expenditures in t... |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Journal of law and medicine Volume: 18 ISSN: 1320-159X ISO Abbreviation: J Law Med Publication Date: 2010 Dec |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2011-03-01 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 9431853 Medline TA: J Law Med Country: Australia |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 263-7 Citation Subset: IM |
Affiliation:
|
Dunedin Hospital New Zealand. grant.gillett@stonebow.otago.ac.nz |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: DNA evidence in jury trials: the "CSI effect".
Next Document: What you see may not be what you get: beware of patients bearing gifts.