In medical practice, the doctrine of informed consent is generally understood to have priority over the medical practitioner’s duty of care to her patient. A common consequentialist argument for the prioritisation of informed consent above the duty of care involves the claim that respect for a patient’s free choice is the best way of protecting that patient’s best interests; since the patient has a special expertise over her values and preferences regarding non-medical goods she is ideally placed to make a (...) decision that will protect her interests. In this paper I argue against two consequentialist justifications for a blanket prioritisation of informed consent over the duty of care by considering cases in which patients have imperfect access to their overall best interests. Furthermore, I argue that there are cases where the mere presentation of choice under the doctrine of informed consent is detrimental to patient best interests. I end the paper by considering more nuanced approaches to resolving the conflict between informed consent and the duty of care and consider the option of permitting patients to waive informed consent. (shrink)

Background: Working as an ambulance nurse involves facing ethically problematic situations with multi-dimensional suffering, requiring the ability to create a trustful relationship. This entails a need to be clinically trained in order to identify ethical conflicts. Aim: To describe ethical conflicts in patient relationships as experienced by ambulance nursing students during clinical studies. Research design: An exploratory and interpretative design was used to inductively analyse textual data from examinations in clinical placement courses. Participants: The 69 participants attended a 1-year educational (...) programme for ambulance nurses at a Swedish university. Ethical consideration: The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants gave voluntary informed consent for this study. Findings: The students encountered ethical conflicts in patient relationships when they had inadequate access to the patient’s narrative. Doubts regarding patient autonomy were due to uncertainty regarding the patient’s decision-making ability, which forced students to handle patient autonomy. Conflicting assessments of the patient’s best interest added to the conflicts and also meant a disruption in patient focus. The absence of trustful relationships reinforced the ethical conflicts, together with an inadequacy in meeting different needs, which limited the possibility of providing proper care. Discussion: Contextual circumstances add complexity to ethical conflicts regarding patient autonomy, dependency and the patient’s best interest. Students felt they were fluctuating between paternalism and letting the patient choose, and were challenged by considerations regarding the patient’s communication and decision-making ability, the views of third parties, and the need for prioritisation. Conclusion: The essence of the patient relationship is a struggle to preserve autonomy while focusing on the patient’s best interest. Hence, there is a need for education and training that promotes ethical knowledge and ethical reflection focusing on the core nursing and caring values of trust and autonomy, particularly in situations that affect the patient’s decision-making ability. (shrink)

In their recent article, Erbay et al considered whether a seriously injured patient should be able to refuse treatment if the refusal was based on a (mis)interpretation of religious doctrine. They argued that in such a case ‘what is important…is whether the teaching or philosophy used as a reference point has been in fact correctly perceived’ (p 653). If it has not been, they asserted that this eroded the patient's capacity to make an autonomous decision and that therefore, in such (...) cases, it is the role of the healthcare professional (HCP) to ‘assist patients to think more clearly and rationally’ (p 653). There are, however, a number of problems with the reasons why Erbay et al suggest we should help patients to rationalise their decisions and how HCPs should go about this. In this article, the author explores some of their main arguments regarding consent and rationality (particularly in relation to religious beliefs), as well as Erbay et al's normative claim that HCPs have an obligation to promote autonomy by helping patients to come to a ‘rational’ decision. Ultimately, the author agrees that the (temporary) solution to the dilemma presented in this scenario (which was to insert an intravenous cannula into the patient in order to allow an infusion of fluids in the event that he changed his mind) seemed both pragmatic and ethically permissible. However, it is suggested that the arguments which underpin this conclusion in Erbay et al's article are largely unsound. (shrink)

Introduction:Prehospital emergency medicine is a specific field of emergency medicine. The basic approach of prehospital emergency medicine is to provide patients with medical intervention at the scene of the incident. This special environment causes health professionals to encounter various problems. One of the most important problems in this field is ethics, in particular questions involving refusal of treatment and the processes associated with it.Objective:The objective of this study is to identify emergency health professionals’ views regarding refusal of treatment.Methods:This study was (...) conducted with 356 health professionals who were on active duty in prehospital emergency health services. The data were collected through a form which included 10 statements. The participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements given by rating them between 0 and 10.Ethical considerations:Before conducting the research, permission was received from the local ethics committee. Participants were given written information about the purpose of the study. Participants were assured that their participation was voluntary.Results:The healthcare professionals with fewer years of experience in the profession and female participants adopted an attitude of giving priority to providing care. Young participants, in general, respected patient autonomy. However, paradoxically, when it comes to emergency medical cases, they expressed an opinion closer to paternalism.Conclusions:This study has found that prehospital emergency health professionals generally respect the patient’s right to refuse treatment; however, they do not prioritize this right when there is a life-threatening situation or when the person does not have decision-making capacity. In these cases, prehospital emergency health professionals tended to adopt a more paternalistic approach. (shrink)