Comments on Case Study Analysis

Posted: September 9th, 2013

Comments on Case Study Analysis

Name:

Course:

Date:

Comments on Case Study Analysis

Comments on Analysis 1

An effective analysis is supposed to give a complete and comprehensive insight into the matter under scrutiny. The analysis on the diagnosis and prognosis given has effectively captured M’s situation with regard to the information disclosed to her. The analysis has identified what therapeutic privilege is and how it should be applied. The analysis has determined that the doctor’s prognosis was in breach of his therapeutic privilege. The analysis also determines that withholding information did not serve to protect life but was because of the doctor’s selfish reasons that set precedence for a misinformed decision (Baillie; Garrett & Garrett, 2010). The analysis rightly recognizes the fact that the doctor withheld information because he feared M would have made the wrong decision.

The analysis also accurately recognizes the implications of withholding such information. Withholding information with regard to the side effects of M’s treatment options by the physician is a direct violation of her legal and the ethical right for an informed consent. The analysis recognizes the importance of an informed consent and what the implications of making a decision without all the facts. The analysis has established the fact that the doctor also withheld information about other treatment choices that would have been made to improve the life of the patient.

In analyzing the case study, the writer has established that a denial of an informed consent exposes a patient to side effects of treatments for which they are not prepared. The analysis reveals that patients are supposed to understand how to take care of themselves while undergoing treatment. They are also supposed to be aware of the effects it will have on someone daily routine and general outlook. Misinformation does not do any good for the patient. In fact, it may affect the recovery process of a patient due to the psychological effects of side effects they were not prepared to experience (Baillie; Garrett & Garrett, 2010). Overall, the analysis has been effective and has tackled key issues that have raised concern.

Comments on Analysis 2

This analysis looks at the relationship between what the doctor thought of the patient and the decision to with hold information from the patient. This analysis directly states that the doctor acted contrary to professional, ethical code. The analysis finds such actions to be improper. The opinion also recognizes that therapeutic privilege allows doctors to withhold information if it poses a substantial risk. This is because the doctor withheld information about the side effects fearing that the patient would refuse the treatment.

The analysis also explains that the doctor’s decision suggests that the patient lacks the competence to make the right decision. Incompetence is related to individuals who are unconscious and those unable to understand the effects of their actions (Baillie; Garrett & Garrett, 2010). M is in neither state making her fully competent. The analysis proposes that a doctor is not supposed to make judgments that may negatively influence his ability to respect the patient’s legal right to making informed consent. This opinion hints at the fact that the doctor assumed the side effects related to chemotherapy are universally available, going against the principle of autonomy that provides for full disclosure before treatment.

The analysis opines that the doctor may have felt that the patient’s attachment to her hair would make her decide against chemotherapy. However, the doctor should have ensured full disclosure of the effects of the therapy for the patient’s consideration (Baillie; Garrett & Garrett, 2010). The decisions for treatment lie in the patient who in turn bears the consequences of their decisions. It is only far to ensure that the information provided is sufficient for an informed decision by the patient. A patient can be provided with enough information as long as they do not endanger life.

References

Baillie, H. W., Mcgeehan, J., Garrett, T. M., & Garrett, R. M. (2010). Principles of Autonomy and Informed Consent. Health care ethics: principles and problems (pp. 31-57). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice-Hall.