The principle of informed consent would apply to this case. In a medical care context, informed consent allows the patient to engage in their own medical treatment. It gives them the ability to choose which therapies they want or does not want to undergo. In addition, informed consent empowers patients to make choices in consultation with their medical care professionals. This joint decision-making procedure is both a moral and acceptable need for healthcare practitioners. Informed consent implies that patients make a voluntary and knowledgeable choice. It also implies that the healthcare practitioner has thoroughly discussed the medical process, including the dangers and advantages. Therefore, the practitioner should thoroughly discuss the benefits as well as the dangers associated with the treatment with the patient before so that the patient can decide whether or not to receive the treatment.
Also, the principle of professional communication would apply to this case since excellent communication has numerous significant benefits on clients’ adjustment to cancer and therapy. In contrast, inadequate communication has detrimental ramifications for both health – care workers and clients. It affects the spectrum and the number of ailments provoked, allows for a more accurate evaluation of therapeutic effectiveness, affects compliance to therapy prescriptions, affects mental and physiological well-being, and contributes to client and medical care provider contentment. Professional communication would help to create trust between the patient and physician, which is the key motivating factor for the patient’s willingness to engage in the medical treatment. Professional patient-centered communication is connected with numerous essential and worthwhile medical consequences, such as compliance to prescription administration and diet plans, pain management, decent psychosocial functioning of clients (Fallowfield & Jenkins, 1999).
Lastly, the principle of human dignity would apply to this case. Once the patient had been diagnosed with skin cancer, the physician was supposed to handle him with the utmost dignity. The principle of dignity is a fundamental component of human liberties, and one of the fundamentals of nursing practice is protecting and developing the client’s dignity. If the healthcare provider respects the client’s dignity, the client would feel more at ease, comforted, and appreciated. As a consequence, the patient is better able to make informed choices about his treatment. Otherwise, the sufferers would be left feeling insecure, degraded, and disgraced.
It is unacceptable to conceal health details from clients without their awareness or consent. Doctors should encourage patients to voice their preferences for health data dissemination as soon as possible, preferably before the data is available. All data does not have to be conveyed to the client immediately or all at once; clinicians must assess the percentage of data a client is capable of acquiring at a given time, postponing the remainder portion to a later, more suitable time, and tailoring disclosure to meet clients’ needs and anticipations based on their predilections. It is recommended that doctors firstly ask a client what he understands about the condition, then convey the message in short portions and straightforward language, and finally recognize the intense sentiments that follow (Edwin, 2008).
Research corroborates the idea that genuinely notifying clients about life-threatening conditions do not increase the frequency of worry, sadness, melancholy, anxiety, sleeplessness, or terror. On the contrary, clients have better contact with family members and personnel, as well as higher confidence in the treatment they receive. Holding back information from clients devalues credibility and excludes clients since truth-speaking is at the heart of ethical relations. Because information is a potent instrument for both virtue and evil, holding back information from knowledgeable clients disempowers them and necessitates a more vital explanation than patient welfare. Withholding information from the patients is not acceptable. While therapeutic privilege is legally recognized, it is not ethically acceptable. Holding back information from clients does not assist them in the long term and may possibly create more damage than benefit, in addition to disregarding their rights.
References
AK Edwin. (2008). Don’t lie but don’t tell the whole truth: The therapeutic privilege – Is it ever justified? PubMed Central (PMC). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673833/
L Fallowfield, & V Jenkins. (1999). Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care. PubMed. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00212-9
Leave a Reply