Example Of Critical Thinking On Patient Consent, Rights, Responsibilities & Legal Reporting Responsibilities

Patients do have their rights; these rights are the basic rules that dictate how the patients, the medical practitioners and the institutions that provide health care services relate (Bord, 2014). According to American Medical Association all medical professionals and care givers should at all times adhere to and promote all the rights that patients are entitled to (Davis, 2015). With regard to Frank’s case, there is no way that I can disregard his request of being discharged because that will amount to violating his right of consent to treatment according to the federal law. This stand however is only applicable if Frank is competent and of sound mind. Furthermore, I am obliged to provide all the necessary information to Frank about his condition and all the possible options available for treatment including the risks and benefits of each plus any possible uncertainties involved so that he can be in a position to make an informed decision on whether to consent or not.
Such consent should always be voluntary without any form of coercion and also the patient should be competent enough to make decisions for the consent to be valid (Buka, 2014). Therefore, since all interventions in health care treatment need consent by the patients themselves or parents for the case of children and proxies for incapacitated adults and considering the fact that Frank is an adult with capacity to make decisions, I will therefore have no authority over his decision to want to be discharged despite the consent of his wife and brother who want him to be treated. As a professional doctor I should respect his decision even if he is very sick and requires hospitalization and proper medical attention.
For the second case concerning Brooks v. St. Johns Hickley Memorial Hospital, the court of appeals was right by reversing the decision of the court that had refused to instruct the jury that the radiologist was guilty of improper experimentation on Brooks because the injection site was not among the ones recommended by the medical community. Furthermore, Brooke being just two years is a minor and could not be in a position to consent to the injection, however the radiologist did not seek consent to carry out the treatment using the unusual procedure from Brook’s parents. Thus he violated the federal law that provides for all patients an opportunity to consent or refuse a treatment (Pozgar, 2011). It is therefore clear from the ruling by the court of appeal and subsequently the permission for review by the Indiana Supreme Court that physicians should not conduct experiments on patients using procedures that have not been approved by the medical community as this is against the law and is illegal.

References

Buka, P. (2014). Patients' Rights, Law and Ethics for Nurses. CRC Press.
Charles Patrick Davis, & William C. Shiel Jr. (2015). Patient Rights: Learn About HIPAA and Other Rules. Retrieved from http://www.emedicinehealth.com/patient_rights/article_em.htm
Jessica De Bord. (2014). Informed Consent: Ethical Topic in Medicine. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/consent.html
Medical Protection Society. (2013). England factsheets. Retrieved from http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/resources/factsheets/england/england-factsheets/uk-eng-consent-the-basics
Pozgar, G. (2011). Legal aspects of health care administration. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.