Essay Sample on Patient Autonomy: Respect and Self-Determination

Introduction

The principle of patient autonomy expresses our obligations to respect the patient's autonomy. That means the decisions they make regarding their lives must be respected. This is related to the principle of human dignity. The principle of informed consent roots from fundamental principles of the right to self-determination. This means that patients are autonomous and have the right to make decisions regarding their bodies without any coercion. Patient autonomy and informed consent express respect for the patients to autonomy. This means that those patients who are capable of making decisions concerning their care have the right to do so. Justice Benjamin Cardozo in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals wrote, "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body." (Schloendorff, 1914). This is regardless of pf whether or not the decisions contradict the medics and clinical medications. These principles have become central to the ethics of modern medical practices. However, for many years, some events have illustrated the possibility of the patient's autonomy being overridden. This paper aims at discussing whether patients should be deceived, strengths, and limitations of the deontological approach and describe categorical imperatives and obligations not to lie.

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

Save 25%

The above-discussed principles have been overridden before, and this remains an issue of debate. Involuntary sterilization of mental defectives has been justified while African-American been denied life-saving treatment for syphilis on the ground of the scientific study of the natural causes of the disease. The concepts of patient autonomy and informed consent are likely to emerge in psychiatric hospitals. This is where patents may be deemed of unsound mind to make the right decisions regarding their well-being, such as rejecting health care interventions. In this case, the patients are often regarded as incompetent to make decisions through judicial actions and in cases where someone else is mandated to make decisions on behalf of the mentally disadvantaged individuals.

In some cases, patients in a psychiatric hospital will present cases where it will be justifiable to deceive in neither trivial nor critical circumstances. In my opinion, leaders of the psychiatric hospitals should sometimes intervene and help in the deception of the patients. This will likely improve adherence and hence improve the patient's care, and this might be only possible if the family members and clinicians deceive the patient. Since the earlier days, the greatest challenge in the psychiatry has been nonadherence to treatment, and this continues to a significant constraint (Young, 2010). Due to the patient's delusion, patients in this area are likely not capable of making informed decisions on matters concerning their well-being. If the leaders in the psychiatry hospital help in the deceiving of patients, it might be justified depending on the intentions of the towards the patients. This might also help the family members to deal with the patient in a peaceful manner.

Other conditions that would justify the deception of the patients would be considered if the patient's decisions regarding a particular matter, would lead to significant harm that outweighs a desirable good. If the medics believe with high degree certainty that a patient will make a specific decision regarding a matter at hand, lying to the patient in some way will be essential. In cases where no other action is practicable regarding the patient's conditions, leaders in psychiatric hospitals might justify deceiving of the patients (Young, 2010). Deceiving might include the administration of drugs in beverages and food of the psychiatrically ill. Although medication of sick psychiatrically patients without their consent in unjustifiable, hospitals and families will wish to cool a troublesome patient through deception. This will ease or alleviate the caregiving tasks since the main aim is promoting the patient's well-being since he may not be able to make an informed consent.

Deontological Approach to ethical leadership has strengths and limitations. Strengths include: creating human conduct foundation which requires treating others with respect, creating higher levels of personal responsibility enables leaders to act in a way that one is responsible for creating expectations required. The deontological approach has the strength of creating moral absolutes and emphasizing the value of each person. However, the deontological approach to ethical leadership has limitations of creating a paradox, seems to be matters of subjective opinions. The approach is also based on our actions and suggests that ethical leadership should always involve doing what is right no matter what.

Categorical Imperatives and Our Obligation Not to Lie

An imperative is something that one needs to do. A hypothetical imperative is something one needs to do but only in some circumstances. For example, a psychic doctor may be forced to lie in some circumstances. Categorical imperative, however, is something that you must do at all times regardless of the circumstances (Paton, 1971). This means that even in a psychiatric hospital, there are ethical rules which must be adhered to and lying is not allowed in any circumstances. Categorical imperative shows that our obligation not to lie since lying can't be universalized.

Conclusion

Patient autonomy and informed consent are subjects which arise in everyday life. This is mainly in the medical industry, especially in the psychiatric hospital. Mentally ill are often deemed incompetent to make informed decisions regarding their well-being in health care. Deception is often justified for the sake of alleviating difficulties that may arise when medicating patients in a psychic hospital. Deontological approaches to ethical leadership have several strengths and limitations too. However, the categorical imperative does not justify the act of deception under any circumstance.

References

Paton, H. J. (1971). The categorical imperative: A study in Kant's moral philosophy (Vol. 1023). University of Pennsylvania Press.

Schloendorff, V. (1914). Society of New York Hospital. 105 NE 92; NY.

Young, R. (2010). Informed Consent and Patient Autonomy. A Companion to Bioethics, 530-540. doi:10.1002/9781444307818.ch44