Risk Management for the Emergency Physician: Competency and Decision-Making Capacity, Informed Consent, and Refusal of Care Against Medical Advice

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan G. Magauran
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh

Personal autonomy is often lauded as a key value in contemporary Western bioethics, and the claim that there is an important relationship between autonomy and rationality is often treated as an uncontroversial claim in this sphere. Yet, there is also considerable disagreement about how we should cash out the relationship between rationality and autonomy. In particular, it is unclear whether a rationalist view of autonomy can be compatible with legal judgments that enshrine a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, regardless of whether ‘… the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent’. This book brings recent philosophical work on the nature of rationality to bear on the question of how we should understand autonomy in contemporary bioethics. In doing so, the author develops a new framework for thinking about the concept, one that is grounded in an understanding of the different roles that rational beliefs and rational desires have to play in personal autonomy. Furthermore, the account outlined here allows for a deeper understanding of different forms of controlling influence, and the relationship between our freedom to act, and our capacity to decide autonomously. The author contrasts his rationalist account with other prominent accounts of autonomy in bioethics, and outlines the revisionary implications it has for various practical questions in bioethics in which autonomy is a salient concern, including questions about the nature of informed consent and decision-making capacity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastanhagh E ◽  
◽  
Behseresht A ◽  

Pain in the process of childbirth is the phenomenon mostly feared by every woman in her pregnancy, and is a major cause of dissatisfaction and embarrassing memories of labor. Usage of lumbar epidural analgesia as a very effective pain management option has solved this problem to a great extent, and its utilization has turned to common practice in most of the women hospitals worldwide. The use of lumbar epidural analgesia in labor is widespread due to its benefits in terms of effective pain relief in comparison with other labor pain treatment options [1]. Vaginal delivery is an extremely painful process accompanied with great emotional disturbance, which may not be possible for the laboring mother to focus and concentrate to understand the anesthetist explanations at that moment and sign the epidural analgesia informed consent properly. On one hand, the laboring mother expresses doubts because of uncertainty on her decision and on the other hand she desperately wants to get rid of the excruciating labor pain by any means possible. Therefore, the decision to have a neuraxial analgesia (epidural, combined spinal epidural) sounds obligatory on this condition. Each of these analgesic methods beside desirable effectiveness in pain management may have some side effects and it is obvious that each complication takes lots of time and patiently concentration for the mother to be precisely understood and the decision making is even beyond of it. Decision making process cannot get precisely completed just in labor time, so free of any upcoming complication, informed consent may not be ethically verified on labor time. Decision making capacity is a complex mental process involving both cognitive and emotional components. Sometimes this complex action is reduced to “understanding” alone. There are uncertainties about decision-making capacity (mental competence) of women in labor in relation to giving informed consent to neuraxial analgesia. Considering these parameters, sufficient information about pain management methods (advantages, side effects, the way each procedure is conducted) should be provided as part of prenatal education and the consent process must be carefully conducted to enhance mothers’ autonomy [2]. To utilize effective methods for presenting the mothers with (like multimedia modules, recorded video of the sample procedure and so on) in late pregnancy should be considered to achieve better understanding and right decision. Patient decision aids are beneficial in clinical anesthesia and studies have shown that patients feel better informed, have better knowledge, and have less anxiety, depression and decisional conflicts after using this method [3]. It has been demonstrated that using decision aids prior to the procedure can significantly reduce the decision conflict, and improve both autonomy and outcome as a united benefit in favor of laboring mothers [4]. It seems that pain-relieving methods (neuraxial and other treatment options) should be described in details at the second and third trimester of pregnancy by a team consist of midwife, anesthesia provider and obstetrician. The more time is spent on this process; the better informed consent is achieved finally. Also high quality decision aids can increase women’s familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflicts and increase knowledge [5]. Factors like parity, pain threshold, and estimated length of labor should be considered together in the decision process to individualize the best pain treatment option for mother [6].


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S28-S28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan G Carpenter

Abstract Informed consent is one of the most important processes during the implementation of a clinical trial; special attention must be given to meeting the needs of persons with dementia in nursing homes who have impaired decision making capacity. We overcame several challenges during enrollment and consent of potential participants in a pilot clinical trial including: (1) the consent document was designed for legally authorized representatives however some potential participants were capable of making their own decisions; (2) the written document was lengthy yet all seven pages were required by the IRB; (3) the required legal wording was difficult to understand and deterred potential participants; and (4) the primary mode of communication was via phone. We tailored assent and informed consent procedures to persons with dementia and their legally authorized representative/surrogate decision maker to avoid risking an incomplete trial and to improve generalizability of trial results to all persons with dementia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (232) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manish Nath Pant ◽  
Saswat Kumar Jha ◽  
Sauravi Shrestha

Introduction: Left against medical advice is a worldwide phenomenon. Patients leaving against Left against medical advice do not provide the health professionals with legal impunity. A well-informed consent should be present with surety that they are well understood by the patient before they leave. The study was undertaken to study the prevalence of patients that leave against medical advice. Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study done in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital from 1st February 2020 to 31 July 2020. Ethical approval was taken from the Institutional Review Committee (ref. no. 130120205). The sample size was calculated and the convenient sampling method was used. Data were analyzed in the Statistical Package of the Social Sciences version 22. Point estimate at 95% Confidence Interval was calculated along with frequency and proportion for binary data. Results: Out of 5834 visits, 332 (5.96%) (4.70-7.22 at 95% Confidence Interval) patients left against medical advice. The mean age was 36.48 years (3 days-91 years) and males 173 (52.3%) were prone to leave than females. Only 50 (15.1%) cases had well-informed consent with complications documented. Hundred (30.5%) patients had wanted to come on follow up the next day in the out-patient department while 41 (12.4%) had to leave because of financial reasons. Only seven (2.9%) of well-oriented patients gave their consent and the remaining 233 (97.1%) were by the kin present. Only 76 (23%) patients were sent home with a well-documented medicine prescription. Conclusions: The proportion of patients who left against medical advice was more than the studies done in a similar setting.


Oncology ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 728-738
Author(s):  
Natalia S. Ivascu ◽  
Sheida Tabaie ◽  
Ellen C. Meltzer

In all areas of medicine physicians are confronted with a myriad ethical problems. It is important that intensivists are well versed on ethical issues that commonly arise in the critical care setting. This chapter will serve to provide a review of common topics, including informed consent, decision-making capacity, and surrogate decision-making. It will also highlight special circumstances related to cardiac surgical critical care, including ethical concerns associated with emerging technologies in cardiac care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey P. Spike

Informed consent is the single most important concept for understanding decision-making capacity. There is a steady pull in the clinical world to transform capacity into a technical concept that can be tested objectively, usually by calling for a psychiatric consult. This is a classic example of medicalization. In this article I argue that is a mistake, not just unnecessary but wrong, and explain how to normalize capacity assessment.Returning the locus of capacity assessment to the attending, the primary care doctor, and even to ethics consultation in today's environment will require a substantial effort to undo a strong but illusory impression of capacity assessment. Hospital attorneys as well as clinical ethicists with a sophisticated understanding of health law can be in the vanguard of this reorientation.


Author(s):  
Werdie Van Staden

AbstractThis chapter applies African value-based practice (A-VBP) to the story of Akanya at two major decision points when values clashed: first between the general practitioner and Akanya’s parents when Akanya was acutely psychotic and required hospitalisation and second 8 years later, when Akanya wanted to discontinue his antipsychotic medication against medical advice. For both rather difficult decision points, the story illustrates how an indaba within A-VBP served as a practical process to take seriously and account for values that were clashing (i.e., uncommon ground), framed by values that were shared (i.e., common ground). The story underscores that dissensual decision-making affords more than default responses such as “I offer only what is medically best—take it or leave it” or alternatively “whatever the patient wants.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document