1.What is Hippocrates known as?
2.What has the classical Hippocratic oath been summarized as a solemn promise of (only name two)?
3. What are the four domains of Good Medical Practice that is drafted by General Medical Council?
4. What is the seventh point under the domain "Communication, Partnership, and Teamwork"
5. What is the fifth point under the domain "Maintaining Trust"?
Although different countries have different forms of the Hippocratic Oath, they are all built on the same foundation of doing what is in the best interest of your patients. Of course, in every case the patient must be addressed differently based on the situation and the patient's mental or physical capacity at the time. In reference to this, does it mean a physician can withhold influential information at the present time if the illness or condition of the patient is in an incredibly vulnerable state? More specifically, if the condition has a high probability of going away as time progresses. Could the action be considered discrimination if someone with the same condition was notified of the abnormality because they are considered to be in a "more accepting state?" I formed these questions when reading an article that expressed how some physicians felt that because of a significant age difference between two distinct types, some mothers should or shouldn't be told about markers that indicate Down Syndrome. The argument is that it could potentially cause more harm to the baby of a younger mother for her to receive the information that a soft marker for Down Syndrome was found on her baby than an older mother. With this, a lack of trust could be formed between doctors and patients especially in this scenario between mothers having babies later in life and their physicians. Although people who are older are sometimes considered wiser and more level headed, I think that any information that involves an abnormality in an unborn child could have a detrimental effect on a spectrum of levels. Additionally, to what extent is the unborn child a patient of the physician unto which the physician should do no harm?
Withholding vital health information about her children from mothers, no matter how well-intentioned, does seem inescapably to reinforce a feeling of mistrust that in the long run must undermine the possibility of a functional relationship between physician and families. Not a good idea, generally.
ReplyDelete*their children*
DeleteIn reading this article the first thing that lept out to me was an example of medical paternalism. In this instance withholding information regardless of the rationale behind this decision, is a gross abuse of power on the doctors part. The doctor is essentially deciding what information their patient can process and how well they will handle it. They are also removing all transparency in the patient-doctor relationship. The patient is going to find out at some point even if the baby does not have downs syndrome and at that point, the damage has already been done. I do not believe that the doctor could ever fully regain the patient's trust after an incident like that. I believe that the most beneficial thing that could be done would be honest and care towards the patient. I believe that the doctor should say exactly what is going on in a way that is personable and reassuring as possible.
ReplyDelete