Informed Consent Is A Central Part Of Medical Ethics

Without informed consent a person’s autonomy is taken away. Informed consent upholds the right that a person has to makes his/her own decisions concerning their health. We all can agree that doing something to someone without their consent is wrong no matter if it is health related or not. Informed consent gives a patient the ability to make a decision about his/her health give the benefits and the consequences with and without proper care. On the basis or having a patient who’s culture, ethnicity, or religion, does not permit them knowing about a particular action concerning their health, it is still the duty of the physician to uphold a patients American rights and the right to autonomy. If someone does not want to know about their condition then why seek care. In the end, something has to give. If that means informing a patient that does not want to be informed then so be it. There are many different cultures and nationalities in the United States, but that does not change rights and laws already in place in the United States. In the United States informed consent is a central part of medical ethics. Should we change our ethics according to the medical ethic in other countries and cultures? (Uhhh no!) That would be compromising our culture and ethics. Just because someone is from a different culture that does not change the rules of a Hospital or laws set in place. If I was getting an operation done in a foreign country, I would expect the procedure to be under the policy and rules of the governing country and not that of the country I am from. Informed consent is a vital part of medical ethics to protect the rights of the patient as well the physician. There are people out there who do indeed deny consent, but they are a small portion and are not a majority. So, we should take away everyone’s right of autonomy to please a few? I don’t think so. There is no law that is going to please everyone, but there are rights and laws that are for the better of everyone and operate in the best interest of the society as a whole. Sacrifice the ethics of a few to uphold the ethics of many….

Restraining Patients!

There was an article posted on AHRQ (Agency for Health Research and Quality) reporting on use of physical restraints in nursing homes creating substantial adverse consequences for resident. The use of restraints on nursing home residents has declined vastly between 1989 and now, but in those cases currently remaining, restraints have substantially impaired the resident’s health. A new study found that 3 months after being restrained the residents had lower cognitive performance, lower ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) like getting dressed and bathing, a more walking dependence. You could expect a 5% lower ADL performance, 10% more walking dependence, and 4% lower cognitive performance of those placed in restraints compared to those with no restraint use. In addition to the restraints creating adverse health consequences, the use of restraints may necessitate subsequent use of additional staff as a result of resident decline.
I think the use of restraints causes more harm than good. Even though those who are for it argue that restraints are used to increase the safety of the patient and the caregiver, there is no conclusive evidence that restraints actually do so. There is vast evidence of the serious problems they cause!!!! The use of restraints is the easy way out and it is hard for me to believe that they are mostly used with the ethical principle beneficence in mind. It creates more opportunity for moral hazard to “ease its evil eye” into wrongful use of restraints. Nonmaleficence is an ethical principle that requires caregivers to avoid causing patients harm, but lower ability to perform ADL’s, lower cognitive performance, and more walking dependence sounds like harm to ME. There are many alternative to decreased reliance and use of restraints, but all of them require a change in attitudes, beliefs, practices, and policies of a facility.