deli Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheena815 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 1 ) Has a 18+ patient the right to refuse treatment knowing that it will kill him? I think I can answer this one: Yes, this person has every right to refuse so long as they are deemed capable of understanding the treatment in question, other alternatives, and the consequences that will result from both accepting and refusing the treatment (and alternative treatments), including the consequence of death. If your patient was mentally deficient and deemed to be lacking this capacity, a family member or even court-appointed advocate would make the decision. 2 ) Has a doctor the right to break the confidential relationship with a patient if the patient reveals that he has done a criminal infraction and the police still does not know about it? I'm not entirely sure exactly what is allowed here, but I'm pretty sure you have to report to the proper authorities (breaking confidentiality) if you deem your patient to be an immediate danger to himself or others. Example: you are a psychiatrist and your patient tells you in a session that he is planning to kill his sister that night- you must report this to the police so the sister can be saved. But another example: think of The Sopranos. Tony's psychiatrist is still obligated to keep his sessions confidential, even though she knows he breaks the law. Has a doctor the right to make a mistake? Well, that's a bit broad. What kind of mistake? If you, as a physician are very thorough, do all the tests you need to do and come up with a diagnosis that turns out to be wrong (which then causes you to harm the patient)- this does happen, I'm sure. And its not like the doctor didn't do everything right. If your mistake is based on negligence (eg. not running all necessary tests, not giving the patient all the facts about a treatment, etc) then the doctor is in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheena815 Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Why is Euthanasia illegall? I mean, isn't it a 18+ patient wanting to stop a vital treatment or maintenance of life? (Just Asking) No. Its the difference between "killing" and "letting die". If you withhold or withdraw medical treatments that would keep a person alive, you are letting them die (as they naturally would without medical intervention). Euthanasia is giving someone a medical treatment (ie. a drug) that will end their life when they would not die naturally, or hasten along what would be a slow and perhaps painful, natural death. "Letting die" is legal. Like people who have "DNRs". They do not want medical intervention should they go into, say cardiac arrest. They wish to be allowed to die from it. Euthanasia is a whole other debate. I personally am hugely in favor of legal, regulated euthanasia or "assisted suicide," but obviously there's a lot of opposition out there. Also, one does not need to be 18+ to make the decision to refuse life-saving treatment. They just need to be judged capable of understanding the weight of their decisions. It differs from province to province, some having an age cutoff (usually lower than 18 I think) and others having none. It is up to doctors and psychiatrists to determine whether one has the capacity to make such decisions. But, say you have a 17 year old Jehovah's witness who is refusing a life-saving blood transfusion on religious grounds, and who fully understands that this decision means he will die. You have to honor his wishes. You cannot force treatment on him. That would be battery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jixe Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Why is Euthanasia illegall? I mean, isn't it a 18+ patient wanting to stop a vital treatment or maintenance of life? (Just Asking) Good question. For the physician, it's the difference between taking an active vs. a passive stance in the patient's death. When a competent patient refuses life-saving treatment, the physician's actions would not be the cause of the patient's demise. (depending on one's morale, his lack of action may be deemed actionable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photato Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Here's a great article to read that addresses many of these questions. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/weekly-checkup/consent.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleboman Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 lol, these answers sound like they are from Doing Right. It's a very useful book btw if you want to explore more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyT Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 that website was great thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyT Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 the defintion of euthanasia you have ie., giving someone a drug that will kill them is AGGRESSIVE EUTHANASIA. PASSIVE and NONAGGRESSIVE EUTHANASIA exist. Passive and nonaggressive are not illegal. The former involves witholding treatment while the latter involves witholding life support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheena815 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 lol, these answers sound like they are from Doing Right. It's a very useful book btw if you want to explore more Never read that, but I've heard of it. I might check it out. I found This Site to be an excellent source of information about ethical issues in medicine when I was preparing for interviews. Anyone wanting to learn about ethics for canadian docs (for interviews or anything else) should give it a good read. (I skipped all the ones about different religions though, there were just too many). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.