Individual Health Care Rights Case Study
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Indiana Institute of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
7000
Subject
Medicine
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by Nayang2014
Module 4 Assignment 1: Individual Health Care Rights Case Study
A.
Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why or why not?
The decision by the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Canterbury
vs. Spence, which established the concept of "informed consent," is widely accepted as a sound
and just legal principle. The court's ruling aligns with fundamental principles of medical ethics,
patient autonomy, and patient rights. Informed consent is essential because it empowers patients
to make decisions about their healthcare based on a clear understanding of the potential risks,
benefits, alternatives, and likely outcomes of a medical procedure.
In this case, Dr. Spence's failure to disclose even the tiniest risk of paralysis related to the
laminectomy was a clear breach of his duty to provide reasonable disclosure to the patient.
Without such disclosure, Canterbury was unable to make an informed decision about his
treatment, and his right to self-determination was compromised. The court's decision was
justified in recognizing the importance of patient-oriented informed consent.
B.
What do you believe causes states not to follow the Canterbury court’s patient-
oriented standard of informed consent?
States may choose not to follow the Canterbury court's patient-oriented standard of informed
consent for various reasons:
a. Legal Traditions: Some states may have longstanding legal traditions and precedents that
predate the Canterbury decision. These states might adhere to older standards or interpretations
of informed consent.
b. State Laws: States have the authority to establish their own laws and regulations regarding
medical practice, including informed consent. Variations in state laws can lead to differences in
the implementation of informed consent standards.
c. Medical and Legal Community Practices: Different states may have their own practices and
interpretations of informed consent based on the local medical and legal communities.
d. Cultural and Societal Factors: Cultural and societal values can influence how informed
consent is approached. States may prioritize different aspects of healthcare decision-making,
which can lead to variations in the application of informed consent standards.
It's important to note that the Canterbury decision set a precedent at the federal level, but the
specifics of how it is implemented can still vary at the state level due to these factors. Some
states may choose to adapt the standard in different ways or maintain their own standards based
on their unique legal and medical contexts. while the Canterbury decision is considered a
significant milestone in medical malpractice law and the establishment of informed consent
principles, variations in the implementation of these standards can be influenced by a range of
sta
te-specific factors.
C.
case study.
Module 4 Assignment 1: Individual Health Care Rights Case Study
1.
Does the doctor have a duty to disclose the risk associated with surgery? Do you agree or
disagree with the initial trial court and why or why not?
Yes, the doctor has a duty to disclose the risks associated with surgery. Informed consent is a
fundamental ethical and legal principle in medical practice. Patients have the right to be fully
informed about the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives to a proposed medical procedure.
This allows them to make informed decisions about their healthcare, and it respects their
autonomy. In the Canterbury case, Dr. Spence's failure to disclose the risk of paralysis associated
with the laminectomy was a breach of this duty.
I disagree with the initial trial court's decision because the court failed to recognize the
importance of informed consent and the duty of the physician to provide comprehensive
information to the patient. The court should have acknowledged that Dr. Spence's failure to
disclose such a significant risk constituted negligence in the performance of the surgery and a
violation of the patient's right to make an informed decision.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit and why or why not?
I agree with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. The court's ruling aligns with established principles of informed consent and patient
autonomy in medical ethics and law. The court correctly recognized that the patient's right to
self-determination is paramount, and informed consent can only be properly exercised when the
patient has sufficient information to make an intelligent choice. The court's requirement for
physicians to disclose inherent and potential risks, alternatives, and the likely outcome of not
being treated at all is in line with widely accepted principles of medical ethics and patient rights.
3. Are you surprised to learn that some states have opted not to follow the Canterbury court’s
patient-oriented standard of informed consent, relying instead on the more conventional
approach of measuring the legality of physician disclosure based on what a reasonable physician
would have disclosed?
I'm not surprised that some states may have chosen not to fully adopt the Canterbury court's
patient-oriented standard of informed consent. The application of medical and legal standards
can vary from state to state, and there can be differing interpretations and traditions in different
jurisdictions. Some states may have chosen to rely on a more conventional approach that
measures the legality of physician disclosure based on what a reasonable physician would have
disclosed, rather than adopting the broader patient-oriented standard.
Module 4 Assignment 1: Individual Health Care Rights Case Study
4. Would you follow the standard of informed consent or the more conventional approach and
why?
The standard of informed consent, as established in the Canterbury case, is more in line with
contemporary medical ethics and patient rights. It places a strong emphasis on patient autonomy
and the right to make informed decisions about one's healthcare. Therefore, I would favor the
patient-oriented standard of informed consent, which requires physicians to disclose all material
information to patients, including the risks, benefits, alternatives, and likely outcomes of medical
procedures.
This standard ensures that patients have the necessary information to make decisions that align
with their values and preferences. While it may require more comprehensive disclosure by
physicians, it ultimately respects the fundamental principle of patient autonomy and informed
decision-making, which is central to modern medical ethics.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help