The healthcare industry is probably the most troubled business struggling with countless ethical constraints ranging from allocation of healthcare resources to prioritization of treatment based on first come first served. The waiting list which works on first come first served basis has raised certain concerns in the provision of healthcare. There are those who have asked whether it is ethical that a critical patient should be kept waiting because there is a queue of patients before him/her.
Is it ethical to give a kidney transplant to a 90 year old woman because she is ahead of a 14 year old girl in the waiting list for the kidney transplant? Whereas it is very wrong for a patient to die in the queuing, it is only fair that patients are served on a first come first served basis. Either way, someone will find something unethical thus the phrase ethical dilemma. Legal Challenges in Healthcare Occasionally vital decisions have to be made to save lives of critically ill patients.
However, questions often arise concerning the legality of such decisions. In most states, people over the age of 18 years are considered adults and have the right to make decisions concerning their health. However, poor health can compromise one’s ability to defend their own rights. According to Merck online medical library, legal capacity and all rights that accompany it continue to be in effect until one dies. That is to say that a patient can still make decisions concerning his/her health regardless of how badly he is incapacitated.
However, if a court of law determines that a person’s capacity to make self interest decisions is compromised, it may intervene to protect that person. According to Merck Online Medical Library, medical personnel have no authority to override a patient’s wishes unless the court issues a legal order that the subject is incapacitated to make sound decisions. This is referred to as legal incapacity. However legal incapacitation entirely or in part takes away an individual’s right to make decisions.
A patient’s right to make decisions concerning their health may also be taken away if the doctor’s examination determines that the patient is unable to understand the medical condition or if the patient cannot make or communicate the appropriate decisions concerning their health condition. This is called clinical incapacitation. Such may include cases of patients in a coma, communication problems, and mental sicknesses. A guardian or a parent is usually appointed to help in decision making on behalf of the patient.
The challenge is nurses understand better what a patient is feeling as opposed to courts which will make assumptions which may not really reflect the patient’s condition. Besides, the patient may not have been involved in appointing the person to help in decision making. The question of the goodwill of the person appointed and if he is morally and spiritually prepared to make decisions that would be desired by the patient comes up as well. Every patient no matter how sick they are should have access to as much resources available as possible until they die naturally.
Doctors must keep trying their best even on patients who show little chances of survival because if they really cannot survive, they will die naturally. Accepting a patient’s request for mercy killing may not ultimately be in good taste taking into account the fact that the suffering a patient is going through may compromise his reasoning but may not necessarily mean that they should die. You can imagine how many people have died just because doctors administered lethal prescriptions when otherwise their lives could have been saved.
The job of health workers is to save lives not to take them. Taking away a patient’s right to make decisions concerning their health may be tragic but in the event that one is critically incapacitated, a next of kin who has been close to the patient should be called in to help in decision making. However, everyone should be encouraged to have a strategic will indicating individuals they trust to make critical health decisions on their behalf in the event that they become incapacitated to the extent of being unable to decide.
This way we can avoid unnecessary malpractices in this process. The court on the other hand should refrain from meddling in health matters unless in a very compelling situation. Courts work on the principle of justice which is basically a win-lose result driven concept. Introducing justice to health provision would be tragic to an industry holding the lives of many. The court should only come in to help save lives not to sacrifice a life for another in the name of justice.
Doctors on the other hand should solely concentrate in the task of saving lives, ensuring that they do their best until nature takes its course. Essentially, the binding fact is that every human being has a right to life which must be protected and sustained by good healthcare guided by the values and beliefs of the patient and next of kin. The law on the other hand should defend the values and morals in the society including those that guide healthcare.
References
Podzgar George D. (2005) Legal and Ethical Issues for health professionals Retrieved May 06, 2010, from http://books. google. co. ke/books id=baXHoB13nXsC&dq=legal+and+ethics+issues+in+healthcare&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=-kniS7mFJIanOJ_J5NsN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=legal%20and%20ethics%20issues%20in%20healthcare&f=false The Merck Manuals Online Library (2009) Legal and ethical issues. Retrieved May 06, 2010, from http://www. merck. com/mmhe/sec01/ch009/ch009a. html? qt=Legal%20and%20ethic&alt=sh