Week 5.docx

4 Pages
Unlock Document

Culture, Art, & Technology
Gerald Doppelt

1. Gruman a. When integrating hope, solidarity, and emotion, medical paternalism may be justified in order to maintain the mental health of the patient. Gruman focuses on the human relations between the patient and doctor, in terms of trust, empathy, etc. b. Goldman assumes that the doctor has scientifically based knowledge on the different treatment options, and that the knowledge is freely available. Once knowledge of outcomes, benefits, and risks are discovered and made available to doctors and patients, how would it affect the patient’s decisions? c. E.G. Apatient is diagnosed with Stage D colon cancer, after having a tumor removed. Gruman and his superior, Keyes, can’t do anything about it, but still recommends a course of treatment option. Keyes tells the patient that chemotherapy is a viable option, but that it has some side effects that can be suppressed. Keyes is expressing a hopeful and optimistic message. Through this, he is expressing that he is well-intentioned and on the patient’side. However, Gruman discloses the medical truth as the story unfolds, in that Stage D colon cancer is rarely, if ever cured (TOTAL eradication, or remission, not occurring within 5 years time). Chemotherapy in Stage D is a palliative, only slowing malignant cell growth. At best, chemotherapy may gain one or two years of extra life. However, this is a gamble, and the patient may just end up suffering through her last years. i. Is he lying, withholding the truth? Is it justifiable? However, how would you communicate a poor prognosis to a patient? Keyes defends his communication methods in that saying otherwise may seem brutal and against the patient’s mental health. He is arguing for preserving solidarity and mental health and emotion. 1. “For patients like Francis and Sharon, too much information is overwhelming. Ignorance is bliss.” – Keyes. ii. After Sharon realizes that Francis is not getting better, Sharon asks Gruman what really is going on. Gruman comes clean and explains that chemo is at best, a palliative. Sharon implores why this was not disclosed at the beginning, and believes that the doctors did not tell the patients because they weren’t smart enough to handle. Gruman feels shamed because he knew that the patients enclosed their entire trust towards Gruman and Keyes. iii. Goldman would have said that the patients had a choice, and if they had had this information, she might have planned her last few months differently. d. The values at stake go way beyond autonomy and “effective treatment” and actually includes trust, faith, integrity, the HUMAN relationship. He implores an “honest” hope, not an exaggerated hope like Keyes communicated. He believes hope is a powerful factor in whether or not a patient can defy the probabilities of statistics and take an otherwise seemingly unsuccessful treatment. 2. Rothman a. Quenlin Case (arguably created the concept of medical ethics) i. After a car accident, Karen is taken to a hospital, experiencing a coma. After a few months, the doctors conclude that she is placed in a permanent vegetative state. The parents ask that the doctors pull the plug. These parents are conservative Catholics, and their doctrine states that Karen should remain in her “natural” state, without life support. The hospital acts paternalistically and denies the request, and the doctors (who have a degree of power) claim that Karen is “alive” and pulling the plug would be a violation of medical ethics. The doctors in the hospital are also worried about being prosecuted for homicide. The New Jersey Supreme Court reaches a verdict that supports the Quenlin family, in effect giving them the power, backed by the law, which was held by doctors and hospitals. ii. The Quenlin case involves a powerful shift of credibility and authority from doctors and hospitals to patients and their families. 1. The authority is rightful power. iii. Rothman makes the distinction between arguments and reasoning between the individual relation (the patient and the doctor) and in context of the law, inferring that this argument and form of reasoning is now a social statement, something that affects all people, not just you and your doctor. 1. The law does not imply that whatever is law is ethical; it does not change one’s mind, but changes power relationships. 2. The argument lies in how to apply the right of self-determination and privacy into matters of choosing life and death for oneself and for others who are not capable of making this decision. We must decide how our rights apply, if they do, in certain situations. iv. The Quenlin lawyer appeals to the right of privacy and the right to choose between life and death as an authority of the family. v. TheAMAargues that issues of life and death lie solely in the doctor’s medica
More Less

Related notes for CAT 2

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.