1. An informed consent is a principle that requires that skilled patients, who are free to consent, be sufficiently informed and be the principal decision makers in their own care. “It should be obtained for all medical procedures and interventions, whether the purpose is diagnostic, therapeutic, palliative, research, or cosmetic.” The more serious the procedure, the more strict it’s requirements for consent should be. In the case of Boyd Rush where his stepsister signed a consent form permitting, a heart transplant if necessary, she was given an extremely lousy consent. The form didn’t even make reference to the sort of heart that might be employed. The physician didn’t do his part in providing all the relevant and sufficient information that was needed to make the decision about treatment. “The insertion of a suitable heart transplant,” is not even close to the amount of information the physician should have provided. His job was to: A. State the recommended procedure; it’s purpose, risks, and benefits, B. Convey all serious risks, even if their likelihood was slim, C. State any reasonable alternatives to the proposed treatment and their accompanying risks and benefits, including the alternative of no treatment and it’s results. D. The predicted forecast for the patient and what the likely outcomes could be, both with and without certain treatments. Another relevant fact is a surgeon’s success rate with a given procedure. The surgeon should recall how often the procedure had worked or failed. Unfortunately, Dr. James Hardy failed to do any of the above. “The term informed points to the dynamic role of the physician, who actively informs the patient” I feel that the informed consent was stated very carelessly and I strongly believe that if Boyd Rush’s stepsister was informed the proper way, she wouldn’t have permitted the heart transplant. 1b. Boyd Rush’s stepsister gave a proxy consent for him. Proxy consent is a consent that can be given by a family member, a close friend, or a court-appointed surrogate. The principle purpose of the proxy decision maker is to make the decision that the patient would most likely make if he or she could do so. In deciding whether or not anyone should be permitted to give consent to such a transplant, one must weigh in the different points. For instance, in the case of Boyd Rush, a chimpanzee’s heart was used. What if Mr. Rush wouldn’t have wanted a chimpanzee’s heart and was against taking an animal’s life for organ transplants? For example, someone like me who believes in the natural law theory, which states that moral law is grounded in rational nature and that morality is directed toward a goal or good such as God, would suggest that it wasn’t moral to use the heart of an animal because it would be an unnatural thing to do and that transplanting an animal’s heart into a human would be taking the place of God which is a wrong thing to do. On the opposing end, one who took the utilitarian approach, which states that actions that promote the most happiness or pleasure are good and those that promote the most unhappiness or pain are bad, would say that it is our obligation to make sure one lives and we must put in all of our effort and do anything and everything we can to make sure the patient survives because it is our duty to make sure that everyone is happy.
To link to this page, copy the following code to your site:
All Papers Are For Research And Reference Purposes Only!
You may not turn these papers in as your own! You must cite our web site as your source!
