Class Notes (836,580)
Canada (509,856)
Philosophy (1,521)
PHL100Y1 (465)
emmett (6)
Lecture 3

PHLB09 - Lecture 3.docx

7 Pages
98 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHL100Y1
Professor
emmett
Semester
Fall

Description
PHLB09 – Lecture 3 Agenda:  Competence, decision-making and children  A few words about advance directives  ―Informed Consent‖:  The concept of informed consent  Standards for determining its obtainment  The interests of others Christine Harrison, et al.: “Involving Children in Medical Decisions”  Informed Consent reflects respect for autonomy (of competent adult patients).  What about children?  How ought physicians and HCPs respond to the preferences and wishes of child patients?  Can/should children participate in the medical decisions that affect them?  Adult models of informed consent assume that ―the patient is autonomous and has a stable sense of self, established values, and mature cognitive skills‖ (30).  Do children have the relevant capacities?  Infants aren‘t capable of articulating underlying goals and values and to reason. As children get older, it‘s plausible for them to make small decisions.  How do we decide for children?  Principle of autonomy?  We still think autonomy is important to children because they‘re still going to be adults.  We have to show respect for that developing capacity that they‘re capable of… but how do we find out their autonomy level?  Principle of beneficence?  To secure the patient‘s best interest, let patients decide.  We think it‘s the role of the gov‘t and doctors to protect the best interest (paternalism), but we also have a social role to protect the interests of children.  Is there some combination/balance that is preferable?  What if they should conflict?  Case study: (refer to Involving Children in Medical Decisions reading)  She may have maturity beyond her years, but because she only has 20% chance of living, go through with chemo. The costs/benefits? – Prognosis isn‘t very good, but 20% is still significant, and lung cancer is a bad way to die, what are the chances that it will emerge elsewhere afterwards?  The child is on the cusp of adolescent maturity  Author suggests a family-centered approach, maybe the patient‘s interest will weight a bit more (physician still has primary duty of care to the patient) must assess the child‘s competency level to make certain decisions.  How do we determine the parent‘s competency level? May be clouded by grief, shock, stress, etc.  Challenges: at what point does it become battery (abusive treatment) to the child? 1 PHLB09 – Lecture 3 Family-centered ethic:  ―A family-centered approach considers the effects of a decision on all family members, their responsibilities toward one another and the burdens and benefits of a decision for each member, while acknowledging the special vulnerability of the child patient‖ (30).  Challenges:  ―Triadic‖ relationship between HCPs, parents, and child patient  What if the parents and child disagree  What is the physician disagrees with the parents?  Family-centered approach:  Respect the child—the particular patient to whom HCPs have ―primary duty of care‖  ―Allow the child to exercise choice in a measure appropriate to his/her level of development and experience of illness and treatment‖ (30).  Affirm parents‘ responsibility and take seriously their concerns and wishes  Seek to harmonize the values of everyone involved  What does this really mean, and what does this approach look like in application?  Is harmonizing the interests/values of everyone always possible?  How might this model help inform our decision-making about Samantha‘s case?  Legally:  Parents have the legal authority (generally) to act as the child‘s surrogate decision-makers:  Obligation to decide in the best interest of the child  HCPs who disagree that decision is in the child‘s best interest can appeal to the relevant authorities (31).  The appropriate level of involvement of children in medical decision-making will differ depending on age, decision-making capacity, and potential harms.  The involvement of infants, primary-school, and adolescent minors will differ, but  (When appropriate) each should be given information appropriate to their comprehension  Strong consideration of their preferences (esp. dissent) – find out why Can the ―process” standard of competence help us here? Process standard:  How well does the patient‘s reasoning reflect the patients underlying aims and values?  What is the necessary level of understanding and reasoning?  How certain are we that the patient has met that level?  Standards set in accordance with expected costs/benefits of a decision  Costs/benefits evaluated with respect to a patient‘s known values/aims  When values/aims unknown, we evaluate with respect to to others‘ reasonable assessment of harms/aims  Merits of process standard:  Evaluation involves balancing respecting patient autonomy and protecting patient from harmful consequences 2 PHLB09 – Lecture 3  Can the ―process‖ standard help us determine the appropriate level of a child‘s participation in medical decision-making?  Why or why not?  Considerations:  Children often do not yet have stable underlying aims/values – even if they‘re able to articulate goals and values, might not reflect mature (adult) values  Process standard isn‘t the same to assess children as adults, not necessarily sufficient.  Even when they do (to the extent that they do), paternalism might be appropriate  The parents‘ interests  The physician‘s special responsibilities to children Canadian Medical Association: “Advanced Directives for Resuscitation and Other Life-Saving or Life-Sustaining Measures” Anticipating ‗incompetence,‘ the currently ‗competent‘ can express wishes regarding medical decisions by  Advance directives  Appointing a proxy decision-maker (if no advance directives or person was appointed)  (Or both) How do surrogate decision-makers decide for the formerly competent:  Expressed wishes  (Sometimes—hopefully—as a written advance directive)  Substituted judgment  Ex. family, wife ―I know them, they wouldn‘t have wanted this‖ Ex. Terri Schaivo case  Ex. doctor ―If I were the patient, what would I do?‖  Best interest  Ex. if there‘s no close friends/family  Use the principle of beneficence and balance those  Use the reasonable person standard.  ―The CMA holds that the right to accept or reject any treatment or procedure ultimately resides with the patient or appropriate proxy‖ (33)  Advance directives helpful tools for respecting patient self-determination  If you don‘t follow advance directive or have informed consent, even if acting in best interest, may be battery, assault – barring certain cases. Challenges and possible exceptions:  Advance directive is too specific and does not speak to actual circumstances that arise  Ex. if in total vegetative state, do not resuscitate. But if in transient state, what to do?  Advance directive is too general and too vague to provide proper guidance  Ex. advance directive only stated that didn‘t want to live without reasonable mind, but when old with Alzheimer‘s, they‘re happy because without memories, what to do?  There are reasonable grounds to suppose the advance directive no longer reflects the patient‘s wishes or that the patient‘s understanding was incomplete when written 3 PHLB09 – Lecture 3  If person has both advanced directive and proxy, which trumps the other?  If advance directive is still relevant, then that‘s stronger  If proxy has appointed level of authority, in cases, that‘s stronger.
More Less

Related notes for PHL100Y1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit