Michael G is going through chemotherapy for his leukemia that he is dying from. The problem is that he agreed to chemotherapy without hearing about other remedies for the leukemia. Nurse L who is taking care of Michael G explains the other options that there are for treating leukemia. The doctor finds out that Nurse L provided Michael G the information. Nurse L argues with the doctor about informing the patient about all of the options available.
The questions in the book are: 1. Was Nurse L acting in a morally correct way when she gave Michael G the information? 2. Should the physician charge have the final word about the information a patient receives? 3. If Michael G did not know about the alternative therapies, was his agreement to the chemotherapy informed consent?
Micheal G has right to any and all information available about his disease because it very closely affects his life. The physician has an obligation to provide all of this information, even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the other options becauase Micheal has a right to decide for himself what is best for him and can't make a truly autonomous and educated decision without all the information. The fact that the physican ommitted this knowledge is impermissable and it was absolutely the right thing for the nurse to provide the information. Micheal did not make informed consent when he agreed to the chemotherapy because he was not informed.
I do think that the Nurse is a little bit out of her realm of authority when she starts arguing with the physician, but I also believe this entire situation could have and should have easily been avoided by the doctor fully informing the patient in the first place. The nurse did have a moral obligation to do what she did by informing the patient, but I do not believe she had the right to argue with the doctor. In the hierarchy of medicine, he has the final authority. I'm not going to argue with my boss about decisions that they made in a certain situation, but I may try to help correct the situation.
Yes, the nurse was acting morally correct by informing Michael G of all his options. As a nurse she is obligated to advocate for the patient and make sure he is receiving the best care. Physicians should not have the final word in the information a patient receives. The patient should be allowed and informed of all information affecting his case. It is not only fair, but also his right to be fully informed of all information affecting his care. If he was not aware of all his options then his agreement to chemotherapy is not informed consent. If he knew of his other options he may have made a different choice.
I agree with the nurse she was acting morally correct telling the patient all of his options. He has a right to be informed with all the possible treatments and its the nurses job to have the best intentions for the patien. The physician should not have the final say in what information the patient is aware of. Doctors have almost half a hospital of patiens they have to see in a day, so its real easy to overlook details. This is when other people on the health care team fill in the details the doctor may have missed to help the patient understand the procedure of other options. No his option for chemptharapy was not total consent rather partial concent because he may want an alternative treatment that he doesn't know is possible.
I think the nurse is acting in a morally correct way, letting the patient know all the possibilities. Michael should know all of his choices to make his fight easier. I think the doctor should have a major say but in what is told, however, the doctor should make sure the patient knows all the possibilities to make his or her life easier. I don't think it is right for Michael to only know about chemo because it is not far for him not to know everything he could do. His consent is not 100%
I do think that Nurse L was acting in a morally correct way when she gave Michael G the information, physicians usually get to see patients for so long and it is possible that they might forget or overlook certain info. A nurse should always look out for a patient's best interest and advocate for him/her and in this situation she was helping Michael G make a well informed decision by laying out all his options. Michaels agreement to chemo was not an informed consent because in this situation he was not "fully informed." I don't see anything wrong with the nurse disagreeing or arguing with the physician if she believes what she's doing is in the patient's best interest, there should always be room in these situations for all involved parties to correct and collaborate.
I believe that Nurse L was acting in a morally correct way when she gave Michael G the other possible options for treating his leukemia. The physician in charge should not have the final say in what information a patient receives. I feel the physicians and the nurses should collaborate when making decisions like these because the nurse is the person who sees the patient the most. Even more so than the physician actually does. I believe if Michael G was not given the information about the alternative treatments for his leukemia then his agreement to the chemotherapy would not have been informed consent because he was not informed of his other options for treatment and that is a deal with informed consent. To be informed consent the patient has to be informed of their other options of treatment and why the treatment they are on is the best one for them.
A patient should be entitled to any and all information about possible treatment options. If the doctor knowingly withheld information, the nurse was absolutely acting morally by informing Michael of alternative treatments.
I believe that the nurse L did do the morally right thing. The physician did not do his job in informing the patient of the other options before chemotherapy. Though, the nurse should have contacted the doctor about her actions. The patient is number one priority and that includes providing them with all the information before the consent is made.
Nurse L most certainly did the morally correct thing. Nurses are patient advocates and sometimes have to inform the patient of all of the information even if the doctor didnt. Although this could put the nurse in trouble with the doctor, ultimately she did nothing wrong by telling the patient about all of his options!
MIchael should have known about all the available treatments out there before he choose the chemotherapy. Obviously he choose this because it was the only option the physician educated him on. I do believe that the nurse was morally correct in giving Michael the information. However, I do not know if that was in her best interest professionally. If I was in that situation I would feel that it was my duty as a nurse to tell him those options because it is deceiving not to. Also, the doctor not providing Michael with those available options took away his independence and right to choose what he felt was best for him. I do not think the physician should have the final word on all the information the patient receives. The patient should get ALL the info, whether or not the physician agrees with it. Since Michael was not aware of ALL of the options for treatment before agreeing to chemo, his decision was not informed consent.
Michael G is going through chemotherapy for his leukemia that he is dying from. The problem is that he agreed to chemotherapy without hearing about other remedies for the leukemia. Nurse L who is taking care of Michael G explains the other options that there are for treating leukemia. The doctor finds out that Nurse L provided Michael G the information. Nurse L argues with the doctor about informing the patient about all of the options available.
ReplyDeleteThe questions in the book are:
1. Was Nurse L acting in a morally correct way when she gave Michael G the information?
2. Should the physician charge have the final word about the information a patient receives?
3. If Michael G did not know about the alternative therapies, was his agreement to the chemotherapy informed consent?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMicheal G has right to any and all information available about his disease because it very closely affects his life. The physician has an obligation to provide all of this information, even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the other options becauase Micheal has a right to decide for himself what is best for him and can't make a truly autonomous and educated decision without all the information. The fact that the physican ommitted this knowledge is impermissable and it was absolutely the right thing for the nurse to provide the information. Micheal did not make informed consent when he agreed to the chemotherapy because he was not informed.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the Nurse is a little bit out of her realm of authority when she starts arguing with the physician, but I also believe this entire situation could have and should have easily been avoided by the doctor fully informing the patient in the first place. The nurse did have a moral obligation to do what she did by informing the patient, but I do not believe she had the right to argue with the doctor. In the hierarchy of medicine, he has the final authority. I'm not going to argue with my boss about decisions that they made in a certain situation, but I may try to help correct the situation.
ReplyDeleteYes, the nurse was acting morally correct by informing Michael G of all his options. As a nurse she is obligated to advocate for the patient and make sure he is receiving the best care. Physicians should not have the final word in the information a patient receives. The patient should be allowed and informed of all information affecting his case. It is not only fair, but also his right to be fully informed of all information affecting his care. If he was not aware of all his options then his agreement to chemotherapy is not informed consent. If he knew of his other options he may have made a different choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the nurse she was acting morally correct telling the patient all of his options. He has a right to be informed with all the possible treatments and its the nurses job to have the best intentions for the patien. The physician should not have the final say in what information the patient is aware of. Doctors have almost half a hospital of patiens they have to see in a day, so its real easy to overlook details. This is when other people on the health care team fill in the details the doctor may have missed to help the patient understand the procedure of other options. No his option for chemptharapy was not total consent rather partial concent because he may want an alternative treatment that he doesn't know is possible.
ReplyDeleteI think the nurse is acting in a morally correct way, letting the patient know all the possibilities. Michael should know all of his choices to make his fight easier. I think the doctor should have a major say but in what is told, however, the doctor should make sure the patient knows all the possibilities to make his or her life easier. I don't think it is right for Michael to only know about chemo because it is not far for him not to know everything he could do. His consent is not 100%
ReplyDeleteI do think that Nurse L was acting in a morally correct way when she gave Michael G the information, physicians usually get to see patients for so long and it is possible that they might forget or overlook certain info. A nurse should always look out for a patient's best interest and advocate for him/her and in this situation she was helping Michael G make a well informed decision by laying out all his options. Michaels agreement to chemo was not an informed consent because in this situation he was not "fully informed." I don't see anything wrong with the nurse disagreeing or arguing with the physician if she believes what she's doing is in the patient's best interest, there should always be room in these situations for all involved parties to correct and collaborate.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Nurse L was acting in a morally correct way when she gave Michael G the other possible options for treating his leukemia. The physician in charge should not have the final say in what information a patient receives. I feel the physicians and the nurses should collaborate when making decisions like these because the nurse is the person who sees the patient the most. Even more so than the physician actually does. I believe if Michael G was not given the information about the alternative treatments for his leukemia then his agreement to the chemotherapy would not have been informed consent because he was not informed of his other options for treatment and that is a deal with informed consent. To be informed consent the patient has to be informed of their other options of treatment and why the treatment they are on is the best one for them.
ReplyDeleteA patient should be entitled to any and all information about possible treatment options. If the doctor knowingly withheld information, the nurse was absolutely acting morally by informing Michael of alternative treatments.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the nurse L did do the morally right thing. The physician did not do his job in informing the patient of the other options before chemotherapy. Though, the nurse should have contacted the doctor about her actions. The patient is number one priority and that includes providing them with all the information before the consent is made.
ReplyDeleteNurse L most certainly did the morally correct thing. Nurses are patient advocates and sometimes have to inform the patient of all of the information even if the doctor didnt. Although this could put the nurse in trouble with the doctor, ultimately she did nothing wrong by telling the patient about all of his options!
ReplyDeleteMIchael should have known about all the available treatments out there before he choose the chemotherapy. Obviously he choose this because it was the only option the physician educated him on. I do believe that the nurse was morally correct in giving Michael the information. However, I do not know if that was in her best interest professionally. If I was in that situation I would feel that it was my duty as a nurse to tell him those options because it is deceiving not to. Also, the doctor not providing Michael with those available options took away his independence and right to choose what he felt was best for him. I do not think the physician should have the final word on all the information the patient receives. The patient should get ALL the info, whether or not the physician agrees with it. Since Michael was not aware of ALL of the options for treatment before agreeing to chemo, his decision was not informed consent.
ReplyDelete