Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Informed consent is an authorized guideline, which safeguards a clients right to recognize the possible threats, benefits, and options for an anticipated health care practice (De-Lusignan, 2008). Every patient should be consent before receiving therapy. Similarly, patients have a right to expect the doctors to abide by their wishes. Informed consent is supposed to be administered concerning a clear obligation and comprehension of the truths, repercussions, and concerns of a medical action (Parker, 2005). To give informed consent, the patient ought to have a suitable cognitive capacity. The article below focuses on a case study focusing on the topic. As such, the assignment shows whether the consent provided by the patient was sufficient before his surgery.
In the case study, Mr. Davis has filed a complaint against Bright Road. Sometimes back, he had been admitted to the hospital. At the facility, he underwent cardiac catheterization. During the process, Dr. William Fredericks, a cardiologist, prolonged the procedure contrary to the patients consent. Based on these actions, it is apparent that Mr. Davis was right to file a lawsuit against the hospital.
According to Dr. Julie Roso, a radiologist, the patient did not require a cardiac catheterization. Her inspection indicated that the patients arteries had a blockage. The condition could be rectified through a change of diet. When she spoke with Mr. Davis about the condition, the patient expressed his dislike for cardiac catheterization. The radiologist later referred the patient to Dr. William Fredericks noting that the patient did not require cardiac catheterization for his treatment. Contrary to her recommendations, the physician was able to convince the patient that cardiac catheterization was the best option for his condition. The patient then signed a consent form permitting the doctor to undertake the procedure. Notably, Mr. Davis crossed out the segment on his consent paper that required stents to be administered. However, during the surgery, the physician added the stents. Following the insertions of the stents, the patient currently is under medication to stop blood clots. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that Dr. William Fredericks breached the patients consent.
Mr. Davis fully understood what was being explained to him before signing the consent form. As such, he had informed Dr. Julie Roso that he was aware of the risks associated with cardiac catheterization and objected to the practice. Similarly, when he was signing the consent form, he indicated that no stents were to be inserted. The above indicates that the patient recognized what was expected of him. Concerning this, he was competent to make independent decisions.
The hospital is liable in this case. Duty to care obligates Bright Road to protect the rights of its clients by respecting their consent (Youngberg, 2011). In this regard, it was the responsibility of the hospital to treat Mr. Davis using the approaches indicated in the consent form. The concerned physician did not take the time to read the patients consent form. The above indicates that doctors sometimes neglect the required guidelines and ethical requirements in the facility. Therefore, the hospital should be held responsible for failing to enforce appropriate regulations that enhance strict adherence to required principles. Similarly, Bright Road is liable for the offense because it failed to conduct regular training to educate its personnel about the importance of abiding by patients consent forms.
References
De-Lusignan, S. (2008). Using routinely collected patient data with and without consent: trust and professionalism. Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, 16(4), 251-254.
Parker, M. (2005). When is research on patient records without consent ethical?. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(3), 183-186.
Youngberg, B. (2011). Principles of risk management and patient safety. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.