Essay Example on Patients' Rights in Medical Care: A Must-Follow

Customers' rights are crucial, and every profession that is customer-centric must put measures and always ensure that they follow the rights of the customers duly throughout the provision period of the services. In the medical field, the patients who are the primary clients have their rights, which some of them are conscious about and always need a strict following. For instance, the patient has to receive medical attention irrespective of the moods or the feelings of the health care provider. Treatment of the patient must always take priority to ensure that the patient regains their normal health. Patients have various rights, such as the right to choose who they want to attend. Patients have a right to get quality treatment in any health care facility (Lavender 142). Therefore, a patient who has a prescription and who does not have a prescription needs similar treatment. If a patient goes to a pharmacy, and they order certain drugs, the pharmacists must give them the medications without considering the moral and the ethical standards of their practice. It should happen guided by the fact that a patient has the right to get the prescription and treatment they need since the well being of the patient takes the priority and needs to be addressed as per the needs of the patient.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Such a patient has the right to treatment of their choice. Even though there are ethical guidelines that guide such a practice, the health of the patient must always come first, and the moral stance of such a pharmacist must not be applied in stopping the patient from acquiring the medication they need. The money to buy the prescription is theirs, and their decision must be respected (Lavender 142). All the pharmacist may need to do is to educate such a patient on the benefits of having a review by a physician who would then consider several aspects and make an informed prescription.

According to The Limits of Conscientious Objections, May Pharmacist Refuse to Fill Prescriptions for Emergency Contraception?" By Julie Cantor and Ken Baum, they believe that a pharmacist has a right to object to the needs of the patient whenever the patient wants to procure medications that are not prescribed by the physician. They support this by saying that pharmacists are professionals who have their ethics that they must follow (Singer 11). The community depends on the pharmacists to direct the patients on how to use the medicines and the most appropriate medications for their conditions. They also have the responsibility of ensuring that the patients are safe and do not develop complications related to the medicines they give. The pharmacists, according to their ethics, have the right to make a personal judgment by refusing to comply with the requirements of the patient (Singer 11). They may practice this after an evaluation and found that they might harm the patient with the drugs they sell to them.

I disagree; the pharmacist may decline to give patient medications where, in other cases, a patient may be in an emergency. By doing this, they might endanger the lives of such clients where they might end up losing such a patient. Ethically the patient must always come first, and their health remains paramount. Therefore, in a case where a patient complicates or is lost as a result of the pharmacist's failure to provide the medication, they might be held accountable for this as it might be termed as negligence (Singer 11).

The pharmacists have a fiduciary role for their patients. It means that the pharmacists have the primary responsibility to serve their patients whenever they need their services. Therefore, when a pharmacist fails to provide medications to a patient because of what they would argue as ethics of their job, they will have neglected their role of serving their patients who are their primary clients. As professionals, pharmacists have an expectation of meeting that they must practice unique tactics and care to ensure they put the needs of their clients first (Lavender 142). It goes contrary to this expectation when a pharmacist fails to issue medications to a client simply because they think it is against their ethics (Singer 14). Some of the decisions that a pharmacist might make and fail to give medicines to their clients and it turns out to be detrimental to them, they will be accused of failing to put the needs and the well-being of their clients first.

The pharmacists are educated and are expected to weigh between the benefits and dangers of giving or not giving a prescription to the patients. When a pharmacist does not consider this and fails to provide a client medication, they will also have gone against their ethics. The client is left facing other health effects. The next thing that would be asked to a pharmacist who fails to give the prescription to their patients is why such a person should take a career which he cannot discharge as per the needs of the client as well as per the rights that a client has. A pharmacist who does not issue a prescription to their clients would therefore not be fit in the career as they show no conviction of belonging to the profession, which puts them on a responsibility to serve the needs of their client. Why, then, should such a pharmacist who fails to honor the rights of their clients be in the career? There is no need for such a practitioner to be in a profession where he cannot do what he is asked to do by the client. The health requirements of the client are paramount and must be obeyed regardless of the ethics guiding a profession.

The pharmacists are educated and are expected to weigh between the benefits and dangers of giving or not giving a prescription to the patients. I would consider between the advantages and disadvantages of providing that particular patient the medication. When a pharmacist does not weigh this and fails to give a client medication, they will also have gone against their ethics. The client is left facing other health effects. The next thing that would be asked to a pharmacist who fails to give the prescription to their patients is why such a person should take a career which he cannot discharge as per the needs of the client as well as per the rights that a client has (Singer 11). A pharmacist who does not issue a prescription to their clients would therefore not be fit in the career as they show no conviction of belonging to the occupation, which puts them on a responsibility to serve the needs of their client. Why, then, should such a pharmacist who fails to honor the rights of their clients be in the career? There is no need for such a practitioner to be in the profession where he cannot do what he is asked to do by the client. The health requirements of the client are paramount and must be obeyed regardless of the ethics guiding a profession.

In such a situation, considering that the patient's rights come before ethics and that the health of the patient remains a priority, I would first take a detailed evaluation of the patient to establish the status of his/her well-being and then thinks of the most appropriate medication (Lavender 144). From there, I would explain to the patient the risks and benefits associated with the particular drugs and teach about the side effects. Then I would give the patients the medications after the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Documentation and consent will also be required if a legal matter arises. Additionally, a close follows up of the patient would be essential to determine how the patient is fairing and whether they are responding or complication due to the medications given.

According to the ethics governing the profession, they provide the right for professional to refuse to engage in a practice that is conflicting with personal morals and ethical standards of the or religious dictations (Singer 15). It is, therefore, following this profession to decline issuing prescriptions clients who are patients if the conditions under which the medicine is to be released do not meet the ethical standards of the job. Many are the times when going against certain ethical standards of a specific job is punitive. A professional may find it unnecessary to enter into an unethical practice as they might not want to suffer the consequences that follow one after breaking the ethics. This is an integral aspect of the democracy where one practices as per the available guidelines of the profession. Oregon upholds this kind of freedom in the act of Death in Dignity (Singer 15). The law allows health workers to assist in suicide, or they are also given the right to refuse taking part in it if it is against a moral standard of a person or is against religious convictions. Similarly, even if the health of the patient comes first, a pharmacist has the right to refuse to engage in an act that is not as per his ethics or moral standards. If giving medications to a client has not followed the required process as per the code of ethics, then the pharmacist and other health care providers have the right to decline on the basis of their moral values as well as the guidelines that are in place concerning the profession.

I would disagree with this objection by saying that by doing so, denying a client medication to treat or solve her medical issues is against ethics. As a health care provider, the core role is to save lives and ensure that clients have a quality life free from the symptoms or other disturbances emanating from the disease. If you ignore such a patient, you will have neglected your scope and responsibility that God has bestowed upon you to assist his patient and save lives. Regardless of the action to be taken, the health and well-being of a client remain the most critical and have to be taken care of by all means. It is better to save a life and increase the quality of life of a client instead of working to defend your ethics and other convictions. Ethics are not as useful as the life of a person and their well-being. If one follows the ethics and allows a patient to die when he would have helped, he/she will have committed a serious crime compared to the crime of breaking the ethics and saving the life of the person who was depended upon by many. The loss of such a client may impact many people that the way of breaking an ethical consideration can affect the community or the members of the profession. Overall, health care provision is a selfless profession where the rights and the health needs of the client must always come first. If one cannot serve the clients as they may demand, then there wouldn't be any need for such people to join such a profession. The well-being of the patient is paramount than any other considerations.

Work Cited

Lavender, Tina, et al. "Enhancing clients' rights and quality of care." (2004): 142-143.

Singer, Peter. Practical ethics. Cambridge university press, 2011.