Health Law and Ethics: Autonomy in Health Care Sector - Essay Example

? Health Law and Ethics Health Law and Ethics In health care autonomy is used to refer to patient rights in making independent decisions in the medical procedures and treatments that are implemented in their care. This means that the health care providers are not supposed to impart influence on the decisions of patients in health care (Entwistle, Carter, Cribb & McCaffery, 2010). However, the principle of autonomy in health care postulates that practitioners are mandated to educate or effectively inform patients as a way of ensuring that they make informed decisions. As a result of this, debated have emanated on the distinction between the informing role of health care providers and the possible influence that they would have on the decisions of patients on health care (Eleftheriadis, 2012). The issue of autonomy becomes significant in the refusal of patients to care which in accordance to the health care providers is necessary in promoting their health and wellbeing. Since the principal of autonomy gives patient a right to decide on the health care that is provided to them, some patients refuse care for various cultural, social, economic factors or belief systems. It is important to consider that upon refusal to treatment, there are possible negative implications and consequences which would result. It is because of this that health care providers are faced with a dilemma when they are faced with situation when they are expected to honor the decisions of patients to refuse treatment (Entwistle, Carter, Cribb & McCaffery, 2010).). In accordance to the provision of autonomy, healthcare providers are morally not allowed to provide care to patients if they refuse (Nortvedt, Hem & Skirbekk, 2011). This is because the decisions of patents are considered to be binding to the care providers. It is however argued that disincentives should be used as an effective way of preventing patients from refusal of positive treatment (Entwistle, Carter, Cribb & McCaffery, 2010).). This is in line with the ethical mandate of health care providers to focus on promoting the health and wellbeing of patients. It is therefore necessary that health care providers engage in effective communication with patients so that they would provide them with sufficient information for decision making. This is to be achieved without having an influence or coercion on the patients in the process of decision making. Beneficence is a principal within health care which describes the obligation of health care provides to provide care that is solely focused at benefiting the patients (Sutrop, 2011). The application of this principal in health care settings includes removing possible harm of patients, preventing deterioration of their condition and improving their situation. When patients refuse treatment on grounds of religion, beliefs or culture, the role of health care providers within the principal of beneficence is significantly challenged (Eleftheriadis, 2012). According to the postulates of the principal of beneficence, health care providers are mandated to refrain from causing any form of harm to patients (Sutrop, 2011). At the same time, practitioners are ethically obliged to help their patients. The ethics of medical practice draw a distinction between ideal and obligatory beneficence. In cases where a patient has refused treatment, it is argued that health care providers are not practically expected adhere to the broad definition of ideal beneficence. This is because the goal of health care provision is to effectively improve the welfare and wellbeing of patients (Sutrop, 2011). This is made possible through the application of knowledge and skills that are possessed by these practitioners. The nature and definition of the relationship between patients and their physicians does not oblige the practitioners to remove and prevent harms (Sutrop, 2011). In addition, the principal of beneficence does not include an obligation to physicians to balance and weigh risks against benefits on behalf of the patients (Sutrop, 2011). The role of health care providers is to ensure that the wellbeing and health of patients is promoted. They do this by providing the patients with sufficient information on the care so that they would decide upon the approach or procedure of care which they consider most appropriate. The role of health care providers in beneficence therefore includes effective application of treatment that is acceptable to patients in order to prevent the risks and harms of deterioration of their health (Sutrop, 2011). Non-maleficence specifically means that no harm should be done to patients in the processes and procedures of care and treatment (Eleftheriadis, 2012). This principal in health care plays a significant role in preventing health care providers from acting maliciously towards patients towards care. This principal also prevents practitioners from providing ineffective treatment procedures and medication to patients (Nortvedt, Hem & Skirbekk, 2011). However, this principal is argued to be ineffective in guiding health care providers especially because many procedures and therapies have various risks associated with them. Because of these risks, some patients may refuse some forms of treatment and therapies (Eleftheriadis, 2012). More significantly though is the fact that the principal of non-maleficence prevents health care providers from implementing procedures without weighing between their potential risks and the expected benefits (Sutrop, 2011). It is reflective that the principal of non-maleficence is based on treatment approaches in which benefits are more than the potential harms that are associated with such treatments. However, it is the patients who decide on whether the benefits of the specific treatment are more than the risks which they would be exposed to in the application of these treatments. As a result, some patients would refuse treatment and procedures which they consider potentially more harmful than beneficial. Therefore the decisions of patients on such health matters outweigh those of physicians. This is so even in situations where health care providers consider specific procedures and therapies are more beneficial. The effectiveness of health care is described in line with its balance between non-maleficence and beneficence despite the dilemmas which characterize striking this balance (Nortvedt, Hem & Skirbekk, 2011). This means that in situations where a patient is likely to refuse treatment which health care providers consider to be necessary, adequate information must be given to these patients to ensure that their decisions are effectively informed (Eleftheriadis, 2012). Therefore health care providers are mandated to ensure that the scope of treatment or medical procedures as well as their nature is effectively understood by patients before they would make decisions on the treatment. In addition, a balance between non-maleficence and beneficence means that health care providers must ensure that the benefits of treatment and health care procedures are more than the risks associated with this care so that ethical health care services are provided to patients. In health care, justice is an ethical principal that postulates that patients with similar conditions and circumstances must be treated and managed alike. This principal prevents any form of bias which would be directed at some patients during care (Edwards, Delany, Townsend & Swisher, 2011). Heath care providers are mandated to prove just care and treatment to prevent the refusal of treatment by patients on the grounds that they consider such health care as biased and therefore unjust (Nortvedt, Hem & Skirbekk, 2011). It is also important for health care professionals to adhere to their moral obligation for undivided care among patients. According to the principal of justice, the scarce resources in treatment should be distributed evenly in the care of all patients regardless of their social economic or cultural affiliation (Edwards, Delany, Townsend & Swisher, 2011). Equity and equality are concepts of legal justice in care which provide that health care professionals must demonstrate to patients that the procedures and treatment that are used to manage their condition are just and fair. This means that the adherence to the principal of justice in health care is an effective way through which refusal of treatment by some patients can be avoided. References Edwards, I., Delany, C. M., Townsend, A. F., & Swisher, L. (2011). New Perspectives on the Theory of Justice: Implications for Physical Therapy Ethics and Clinical Practice. Physical Therapy, 91(11), 1642-1652 Eleftheriadis, P. (2012). A Right to Health Care. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(2), 268-285. Entwistle, V. A., Carter, S. M., Cribb, A., & McCaffery, K. (2010). Supporting Patient Autonomy: The Importance of Clinician-patient Relationships. JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(7), 741-745 Nortvedt, P., Hem, M., & Skirbekk, H. (2011). The ethics of care: Role obligations and moderate partiality in health care. Nursing Ethics, 18(2), 192-200 Sutrop, M. M. (2011). Viewpoint: How to avoid a dichotomy between autonomy and beneficence: from liberalism to communitarianism and beyond. Journal of Internal Medicine, 269(4), 375-379 Read More