Doctors should make patients aware of different treatments for certain diseases. But doctors are also reading and finding out new information all the time and what may work for some people doesn't nec work for everyone. Sometimes a doctor doesn't mention a treatment b/c he's fairly sure that the said treatment isn't what the patient needs...not every clinical picture is the same. There are also doctors who won't offer options based on values.
The hard part about the second question is teh professional leway and professional judgement that comes into play with each patient and with each treatment. Should I voluntarily tell a patient every option available and then place the onus on the patient to make the decision? I think that depending on the case you should provide a couple of reasonable options that the physician is 1. comfortable with and 2. confident with for treatment...if the patient asks about new or controversial treatment the doctor is at least obligated to address it then and refer if the patient wants to explore that avenenue.
should public defenders deprive their clients of legit defenses becos they don't feel comfortable helping someone they think might be guilty?
should public defenders deprive their clients of legit defenses becos they don't feel comfortable helping someone they think might be guilty?
only if they're educated at northwestern
no, you do the job to the best of your ability. And sometimes the best of your ability and best treatment is to not throw the "kitchen sink" so to speak, at the problem. There are things that work, and different clinical pictures do help guide care. What works for one person may or may not work for someone else. We're making steps in the medical field with evidence based medicine so we know which treatments are more ideal than others and which ones have more "merit" but medicine should never, and can never, but turned into cookbook medicine (where you do A and B to get C...b/c it doesn't happen).
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
no, you do the job to the best of your ability. And sometimes the best of your ability and best treatment is to not throw the "kitchen sink" so to speak, at the problem. There are things that work, and different clinical pictures do help guide care. What works for one person may or may not work for someone else. We're making steps in the medical field with evidence based medicine so we know which treatments are more ideal than others and which ones have more "merit" but medicine should never, and can never, but turned into cookbook medicine (where you do A and B to get C...b/c it doesn't happen).
now explain to me how denying information about perfectly safe and tested and widely accepted medical practices due to your personal moral beliefs qualifies as providing your patient with the best individualized care? it has nothing to do with what's best for the patient and everything to do with the doctor's moral agenda. no one is talking about kitchen sink approaches, we're talking about providing info about widely accepted and established practices for the benefit of patients. we're not talking about mentioning new, experimental treatments that are unproven or homeopathic remedies... we're talking about the plan b pill or abortion. public defenders probably should not throw out every crazy defense they can think of even fi untested, but if they fail to discuss valid and proven defenses they can be sued for malpractice and the decisions appealed. however, since it's kinda impossible to "appeal" a child's birth becos no one told the mother about plan b, i dont think it's unreasonable to mandate that doctors are ethically obligated to inform patients about such options, even if they are not comfortable providing the treatment themselves.
now explain to me how denying information about perfectly safe and tested and widely accepted medical practices due to your personal moral beliefs qualifies as providing your patient with the best individualized care? it has nothing to do with what's best for the patient and everything to do with the doctor's moral agenda. no one is talking about kitchen sink approaches, we're talking about providing info about widely accepted and established practices for the benefit of patients. we're not talking about mentioning new, experimental treatments that are unproven or homeopathic remedies... we're talking about the plan b pill or abortion. public defenders probably should not throw out every crazy defense they can think of even fi untested, but if they fail to discuss valid and proven defenses they can be sued for malpractice and the decisions appealed. however, since it's kinda impossible to "appeal" a child's birth becos no one told the mother about plan b, i dont think it's unreasonable to mandate that doctors are ethically obligated to inform patients about such options, even if they are not comfortable providing the treatment themselves.
i never said in re: to plan B that it shouldn't be offered...i'm quite for it and think it should be offered AND i think physicians should either discuss it with their patients directly or direct them to somone who can help fulfill that need. Abortion I'm not touching today b/c my day is going fairly well. The quesiton i responded to was a very vague and general question re: physicians requirements to tell ALL options. I agree with you on the specifics of reproduction (at least plan ...and most everyone knows abortion is an option so if a doctor doesn't mention it it's not like someone will be caught off guard that it's an option.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
i never said in re: to plan B that it shouldn't be offered...i'm quite for it and think it should be offered AND i think physicians should either discuss it with their patients directly or direct them to somone who can help fulfill that need. Abortion I'm not touching today b/c my day is going fairly well. The quesiton i responded to was a very vague and general question re: physicians requirements to tell ALL options. I agree with you on the specifics of reproduction (at least plan ...and most everyone knows abortion is an option so if a doctor doesn't mention it it's not like someone will be caught off guard that it's an option.
fair enough. i was thinking of this specific situation and doctors witholding valid and pertinent medical information due to moral agendas. i think that is clearly unethical.
fair enough. i was thinking of this specific situation and doctors witholding valid and pertinent medical information due to moral agendas. i think that is clearly unethical.
i concurr...esp if it goes against the standard of care / practice of the AMA or the place of employment.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
In my experience with having a daughter with Down syndrome and her advocate for getting the same services as anyone without disabilities, I have found that multiple doctors are not giving the facts to pregnant women concerning the possibility of having a baby with DS. Many doctors are quick to concentrate on the nagatives of the disability and actually encourage women to terminate. Meanwhile, my daughter is a bright, beautiful and happy little girl. Forget about giving facts to pregnant women, doctors are too quick to point out that they "don't want a baby with a birth defect". Those with Down syndrome now, through many treatment options available are living their lives to the fullest, but these doctors don't seem to know that...or care.
Comments
should public defenders deprive their clients of legit defenses becos they don't feel comfortable helping someone they think might be guilty?
only if they're educated at northwestern
no, you do the job to the best of your ability. And sometimes the best of your ability and best treatment is to not throw the "kitchen sink" so to speak, at the problem. There are things that work, and different clinical pictures do help guide care. What works for one person may or may not work for someone else. We're making steps in the medical field with evidence based medicine so we know which treatments are more ideal than others and which ones have more "merit" but medicine should never, and can never, but turned into cookbook medicine (where you do A and B to get C...b/c it doesn't happen).
now explain to me how denying information about perfectly safe and tested and widely accepted medical practices due to your personal moral beliefs qualifies as providing your patient with the best individualized care? it has nothing to do with what's best for the patient and everything to do with the doctor's moral agenda. no one is talking about kitchen sink approaches, we're talking about providing info about widely accepted and established practices for the benefit of patients. we're not talking about mentioning new, experimental treatments that are unproven or homeopathic remedies... we're talking about the plan b pill or abortion. public defenders probably should not throw out every crazy defense they can think of even fi untested, but if they fail to discuss valid and proven defenses they can be sued for malpractice and the decisions appealed. however, since it's kinda impossible to "appeal" a child's birth becos no one told the mother about plan b, i dont think it's unreasonable to mandate that doctors are ethically obligated to inform patients about such options, even if they are not comfortable providing the treatment themselves.
i never said in re: to plan B that it shouldn't be offered...i'm quite for it and think it should be offered AND i think physicians should either discuss it with their patients directly or direct them to somone who can help fulfill that need. Abortion I'm not touching today b/c my day is going fairly well. The quesiton i responded to was a very vague and general question re: physicians requirements to tell ALL options. I agree with you on the specifics of reproduction (at least plan
fair enough. i was thinking of this specific situation and doctors witholding valid and pertinent medical information due to moral agendas. i think that is clearly unethical.
i concurr...esp if it goes against the standard of care / practice of the AMA or the place of employment.