Ethical considerations

Published on 03/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Internal Medicine

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1481 times

3 Ethical considerations

Introduction

The cornerstone of a good relationship between doctor and patient is trust. In primary care, this relationship (often in the context of caring for the whole family) may be built up over several years, but in hospital practice or in an emergency, the patient and the doctor may be meeting for the first time. Patients expect a high standard of behaviour and care when they seek medical help. This includes the following expectations:

Always assume that a patient is able fully to understand the nature of the medical problem and its implications, regardless of your impression of their educational level. Some patients like to discuss what they would like to know early in a consultation, and many will say clearly what information they would like to be given to the family. Occasionally, family members may feel that the patient would not be able to comprehend medical information; or ask that they are ‘protected’ from the full details of a serious illness. Patients may insist that they do not wish the family to know about their medical problems or, sometimes, that they themselves do not wish to know the diagnosis. In all such instances, the needs and rights of each individual patient should be considered paramount, over and above those of the family, in the event of conflict.

Consent

The patient’s consent should be sought for any treatment, however minor, even when that consent might appear implicit as, for example, by attendance at an emergency unit with injury. Sometimes assessment of a minor symptom discloses a separate, more serious issue. In such circumstances, consent to investigate the new problem is required.

In order to give consent, a patient must have sufficient, accurate information about the illness in order to make an informed judgement about whether its investigation and treatment are justified. There are four requirements of the doctor discussing an intervention with a patient:

Legal requirements for consent

There are three aspects of consent that are required in law:

Competence and capacity for consent

The definition of mental capacity is given in Box 3.1. If the patient does not have capacity to make a decision, the doctor must involve the relatives, although the doctor is still taking the final decision. If the patient does not have capacity and has no relatives, in the UK the doctor must involve an independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA) to help with decision-making, particularly if consenting for surgery or for decisions about change of living circumstances.

Special difficulties with consent arise when the patient is unconscious. If treatment is necessary in order to save life, it can and must be given without waiting for consent. If relatives are available, they should be consulted, but their wishes are not necessarily paramount in the decision to initiate life-saving therapy. The relatives may thus assent to treatment, but cannot legally consent to it (in the UK). This limitation also means that relatives cannot legally refuse treatment that is medically in the best interests of the patient, although a conflict of this kind should be reason to consider, carefully and in detail with the relatives, the reasons for disagreement.

Consent for the treatment of children requires special consideration. In general, a minor (i.e. a person under the age of 16 years) can be treated without parental consent, provided that care has been taken to ensure the child understands the nature of the treatment proposed and its possible risks, adverse effects and consequences. However, this should be a most exceptional decision. In practice, the parents’ agreement should almost always be sought. An obvious exception would be in an emergency, such as after a life-threatening head injury, or when non-accidental injury is suspected. Difficult decisions sometimes arise, for example when the prescription of contraceptive drugs to a young girl is requested in circumstances she does not wish her parents to know, or parents refusing to allow a bleeding child to have a blood transfusion for religious reasons.

Confidentiality

The fact that all aspects of the medical consultation are confidential forms the foundation for the consultation, as it allows the patient freedom of expression in the knowledge that disclosures made within the confines of the consulting room will not be made available to others.

The principle of confidentiality applies also to the medical records. These are held by the doctor or the group practice or, in the case of hospital records, by the hospital itself. Medical records are not available to anyone other than the medical and nursing staff treating the patient, and are immune from police powers of search. They are made available, however, with the permission of the patient and, once disclosed, can be used in evidence in court in both civil and criminal cases. Patients have the right to inspect their own medical records after seeking access in writing. In the UK, the principle of confidentiality is rigorously supported by the General Medical Council and its breach is regarded as a serious matter.

The main situations in which confidentiality can be relaxed include the following:

Resuscitation

Resuscitation is generally available in hospitals in the event that cardiopulmonary arrest occurs unexpectedly. However, this is not always successful, and many patients, recognizing the terminal nature of their illness, may request that resuscitation not be attempted. This is an entirely valid request, which should be respected once it is certain that the options are clearly understood by the patient.

Not for resuscitation

Sometimes a patient is so seriously ill that resuscitation is deemed inappropriate by medical and nursing staff. Clearly, this implies a value judgement by those concerned that, in some way, the patient’s life is not worth saving. The situation most frequently arises when a patient has terminal cancer; resuscitation followed by a few hours or days of further pain and discomfort might be regarded as an unnecessary prolongation of the illness.

The decision to withhold resuscitation is a matter for which it is proper always to seek the patient’s full, informed consent. The patient’s views are paramount, and should be respected whatever the views of the clinicians and nurses or even the relatives. Relatives have no legal rights in a decision about the possible resuscitation of another individual. Although they may be consulted, and their views noted, they should not be allowed to influence a decision once it has been made by the individual, unless it is decided that the patient is not competent by reason of dementia, or some other impairment of judgement, to reach a decision. Overt depression, for example, might be a reason for not accepting a patient’s expressed wish not to be resuscitated.

Although it might be thought not helpful to a patient to discuss this issue openly, in fact the reverse is usually the case. Most patients near to death are aware of their situation and welcome the opportunity for full discussion of the issues. The agreement of the patient and medical staff should be signed in the case record and most hospitals now use a formal protocol to document this procedure. Patients should always be resuscitated when cardio-pulmonary collapse is unexpected and their wishes are unknown.

Other ethical problems

There are several other problems that arise in medical practice, many of which are likely to become more important in the coming years.

Medical negligence

Inadvertent adverse events are common in clinical practice, but few of these result in any legal action. Accusations of negligence often imply that a doctor-patient relationship has broken down. For the doctor, such an action is distressing and sometimes professionally damaging, even when shown to be unjustified.

In considering whether there has been negligence, it is necessary to establish breach of professional duty (whether the standard of care afforded the patient fell below what was expected). The standard expected is that of the ordinary skilled practitioner in the field in question, practising in the circumstances pertaining. It is not that of the greatest expert in the land. Thus, in assessing possible negligence, a court will need to establish:

A mistake in diagnosis is not necessarily negligent, and the test of the standard of care applicable to the ordinary practitioner in the specialty will be applied by the court in considering this.

Doctors are expected to keep up to date in their expertise by continuing medical education, and this is an aspect that is relevant to this judgement. Doctors in training are expected, by and large, to exercise an appropriate standard of care, and no patient should expect a lower standard of care simply because they are cared for by a junior doctor with less experience. This would clearly be wrong. It is imperative, therefore, that in treating a patient, advice and help should be sought from senior colleagues whenever relevant.

If negligence has occurred, the legal process will go on to attempt to establish what harm resulted from the negligence, and that the harm would not have occurred if the negligent act had not been committed.

Genetics

The rapidly evolving availability of relatively accurate genetic testing for susceptibility to inherited diseases, based on the modern understanding of DNA and the genetic code, has raised a number of ethical problems for which most societies are not well prepared. For example:

The application of genetic information to medical practice is a current major area of change. It can be expected to have profound implications for the management of most aspects of disease, and for the ways in which all societies view the acquisition and availability of medical information.

Principles of medical ethics

Several modern attempts have been made to encapsulate the principles of ethical medical behaviour in a series of simple statements. The Declaration of Geneva (Box 3.2) represents a modern attempt to restate the Hippocratic Oath in contemporary language. The International Code of Medical Ethics (Box 3.3) was derived from these principles, and restates them in more direct terms. The Declaration of Helsinki (1975) sets out recommendations for the guidance of doctors wishing to undertake biomedical research involving human subjects. The recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki are generally recognized as relevant to the design of research protocols. The UK General Medical Council’s duties of doctors are listed at the end of Chapter 1.

Box 3.3 International Code of Medical Ethics