Ethical Considerations Project. Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital - Essay Example

? Ethical Considerations Project Legal interference in raising ethical conscience and understanding among professionals has long been an important facet in modern human society. At the same time, it is also true that religious influences, often hindrances, have been stimulating conflicting concerns to the justness of legal dictations regarding ethical duties of a profession. A similar scenario is apparently observable in the landmark case of Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital 208 U.S. 405 (1989). In this essay, this particular case will be assessed following the examination of ethical and legal considerations of the issue identified. Accordingly, justification to the judgement will be delivered, based on a critical perspective. Ethical Considerations Project In the case of Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital 208 U.S. 405 (1989), the plaintiff (Kathleen Brownfield) accused the defendant (Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital) in failing to take her informed consent when deciding for emergency contraception in the consequence of her being raped (Leagle, 2013). In defence, the defendant argued that being a Catholic hospital it was not bound under the conscience clauses of the US Abortion Statute as the discharge of morning-after pill is only to prevent contraception that does not terminate pregnancy. The judgment was however delivered in favour of the plaintiff, taking into account the clauses mentioned under the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (Ascension Health, 2013). Ethical consideration regarding the issue A generalised perspective to the context postulates that a sure and fast access of information regarding emergency contraception should be given to the rape victims along with the victims of domestic violence and any other sexual assault case under medical supervision. Therefore, the issue in this context centralises on the ethical consideration of the Catholic hospital (the defendant) in serving the rape victim with informed consent. Taking reference from the Catholic theology of delivering healthcare services, it can be argued that many Catholic hospitals (including the defendant in this case) reasoned on the grounds of its provisions, which undermined the rape victim’s ‘right to information’, as discussions based on emergency contraception is considered as partially impermissible. Additionally, the Catholic theologies also argue that in consequence of informing the rape victim about emergency contraception shall held the hospital and the physician correspondingly culpable for any undue action of the victim (Smugar, Spina, & Merz, 2000). On the other hand, when considering the patient’s right to truth as well as freedom to select their healthcare preferences, the ethical and religious directives bind the Catholic hospitals in informing the rape victims when serving emergency contraception as a measure of pregnancy prophylaxis. In this context, the 26th directive of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (5th Edition) postulates that “The free and informed consent of the person or the person’s surrogate is required for medical treatments and procedures, except in an emergency situation when consent cannot be obtained and there is no indication that the patient would refuse consent to the treatment”. Under this particular directive, even though the Catholic hospitals can be deemed as not bound to obtain an informed consent from the patient when delivering emergency situations, a critical evaluation of the rule advocates that such actions shall only be justified where the patient deciphers or has no reason to decipher a refusal to the rendered treatment (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2009). Thus, based on these ethical considerations, where the plaintiff in this case had a possibility to refuse emergency contraception, the Catholic hospital was bound to take her informed consent. Legal consideration regarding the issue Legal considerations in concern to the issue identified in the referred case, involve concerns regarding the patient’s ‘right to information’, essentially where the treatment may include a certain percentage of risk to the individual or to the individual’s surrogate. In other words, as was argued by the court of law in the referred case of Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital 208 U.S. 405 (1989), the patient must have the right to take her decisions regarding the treatment procedure, with adequate information about the reasons and the risks associated with the care delivery. Defendant’s reasoning that the deliverance of morning-control pill was in order to prevent pregnancy and should not be considered as the termination of pregnancy or pregnancy prophylaxis can be deemed as void. It can further be justified with reference to the case rule in Margaret S. v. Edwards 488 U.S. 181 (1980) that supported the plaintiff’s accusation that delivering Intrauterine Device (IUD) or morning-control pill is an action to “terminate pregnancy after fertilization but before implantation”. The persisting legal gap in this context was the lack of precise or specific inclusion of policies and principles in Catholic hospitals regarding their duties of obtaining informed consent when rendering emergency treatment to rape victims (Leagle, 2013). Furthermore, referring to the case rules in Canterbury v. Spence., 464 F.2d 772 (1972) and Truman v. Thomas, 611 P.2d 902 (1980), it can be argued that a physician or a healthcare unit shall be deemed to violate the legitimate rights of the rape victim as a patient concerning informed consent and freedom to take decisions in avoiding pregnancy (Smugar, Spina, & Merz, 2000; VersusLaw Inc, 1998; Stanford, n.d.). Ethical concepts and principles applied to the issue The ethical concepts and principles applied to the issue included the civil rights of a rape victim when obtaining emergency treatment facilities that imposed the risk of abortion along with the legitimate authority of the Catholic hospital in withdrawing from delivering adequate information to the patient (a rape victim) when attempting for pregnancy prophylaxis. Accordingly, the principles mentioned under the 5th amendment of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops were also considered in this case, where utmost significance was given to the directives 26, 27 and 45 along with taking into account the other mentioned rules. Justification to the decision given in the Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital case If I were a judge in Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital case, yes I would have agreed with the judgment delivered, understanding the ethical and the legal considerations associated with the issue. Correspondingly, the case rule justifies that a lack of understanding persists in identifying the differences between ‘prevention’ and ‘termination’ of pregnancy, especially when referring to the ethical and religious principles followed by Catholic hospitals. Under such circumstances, it can be argued that the patient’s right to information was much more apparent, justified and specific as compared to the religious theology of the Catholic hospital in ignoring the conveyance of adequate information to the rape victim regarding emergency contraception. This holds the plaintiff’s accusation as legitimate and therefore, binds the defendant under both ethical and legal considerations. Conclusion The referred case study evidently symbolises the complexities arising from the intersection of religious influences and moral theology in emergency healthcare deliverance. It also highlights the effects of gaps persisting in the policies laid by the Catholic hospitals in concern to the treatment requirements of rape victims. Conclusively, with concern to the unevenness in the treatment policies of Catholic hospitals, it is recommendable that more transparency and adequacy is required in specifying the rules of rendering treatment facilities to rape victims, keeping the patient’s right to information and their interests among the top priority concerns. References Ascension Health. (2013). Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital. Retrieved from http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=241&Itemid=173 Leagle. (2013). Brownfield V. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital. Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1989613208CalApp3d405_1581 Smugar, S. S., Spina, B. J. & Jon, F.M. (2000). Informed Consent for Emergency Contraception: Variability in Hospital Care of Rape Victims. American Journal of Public Health, 90(9), 1372-1376. Stanford. (n.d.). Canterbury v. Spence., 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Canterbury.htm United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2009). Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf VersusLaw Inc. (1998). Patient must be informed of the risks of refusing treatment - Truman v. Thomas, 611 P.2d 902 (Cal. 1980). Retrieved from http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/consent/Truman_v_Thomas.htm Read More