Answer

Ethical Health Promotion

Over the years, a vast body of stare decisis, as well as statutory underpinnings has come to show that the patient is the master of his/her own body, thus he/she has the right to give informed consent, or refuse medical treatment. This is especially so with respect to surgical procedures. Principle 1 of health care ethics is the principle of respect for autonomy (Zolkefli, 2017). The practice of informed consent emanates from this principle. Informed consent in this respect is not always expected to be in the affirmative. If a competent patient voluntarily refuses treatment, the principle of respect for autonomy precludes that such decision is to be respected. Whereas a patient may be in dire need of a particular medical procedure, the medical professional is ethically bound to respect the patient’s decision even when that decision is in the negative.

In an article dubbed, “Refusal of Emergency Medical Treatment: Case Studies and Ethical Foundations,” Marco et al (2017) provides an exquisite analysis of case studies regarding informed consent. Based on the findings of these case studies, it is stipulated herein that whereas the doctor is ethically bound to respect the decision of the patient even though it is in the negative, before such acceptance, he is ethically and legally required to conduct an assessment of the patient’s decisional capacity (Marco et al., 2017). This is done through routine communications and interactions (Marco et al., 2017). Refusal of treatment only suffices when the patient possesses the decisional capacity and the doctor bears the burden of proving that the patient possesses of lacks decisional capacity.

The medical professional is also required to communicate the diagnosis and treatment options in an understandable manner (Marco et al., 2017). The patient should be made aware of the risks and benefits of the treatment option and the potential consequences of refusing treatment. If the patient still expresses refusal, the refusal should be well documented.

Respecting refusal of treatment often possess an ethical concern since it arguably goes against the Hippocratic oath and the personal inclinations of the doctor (Zolkefli, 2017). The ethical concern is further compounded by the fact that the doctor is required to measure decisional capacity mainly through observation. It has been argued that the power of choice is a colossal one and that there are instances when the power of choice ought to be limited. As stipulated by Marco et al. (2017), the power of choice has indeed been limited by dint of the requirement to measure decisional capacity through routine communication and interaction. This is an arguably skewed modality of measuring decisional capacity since through this, it is apparent that certain classes of people (such as the elderly and those with low educational levels) are deemed to lack capacity due to the inherent flaws in their communication and interaction at the health institution. Health care professionals can cure this dilemma by helping the patient to be calm and assisting him to have a good understanding of the diagnosis that has been made, the treatment options, the benefits and risks of the treatment option and the consequences of refusal of treatment.

The patient is the master of his own body, thus he has the right to give informed consent, or refuse medical treatment. The doctor is ethically required to assess decisional capacity before treating the patient’s reply as official. An ethical issue arises by dint of the fact that capacity is mainly measured through communication and interaction. The healthcare professionals can resolve this issue by ensuring that the patient has understood the information being presented to him.