Ethical Case Analysis Rachel Langston, Michelyn Reyes,

Ethical Case Analysis Rachel Langston, Michelyn Reyes, Zachary Pulliam University of Texas Medical Branch GNRS 5298 Josie Tombrella, DNP, APRN, AGPCNP-BC January 30, 2023 Ethical Case Analysis Case Vignette An 82-year-old woman presents with a palpable breast mass. Biopsy revealed breast cancer. The patient is seen by a surgeon who tells her that she needs surgery, hands her a consent form, asks her to read and sign it, and leaves the examination room. The surgeon’s resident returns later to retrieve the signed form and asks if she has any questions. The patient said, “No questions, the doctor knows best. I just hope everything will be ok.” Medical Indication Medical providers have a responsibility to practice beneficence and nonmaleficence. Beneficence means to provide good versus harm, and nonmaleficence means the duty to avoid causing damage (Frezza, 2019). In this case vignette, the surgeon notified the patient that she needs surgery but failed to explain the patient’s current condition, her prognosis with or without surgery, type of surgery, indication for surgery, and, most importantly, risks and benefits. With Beneficence, the surgeon has an obligation to ensure the patient fully comprehends all risks and benefits. The risks may be too great depending on the patient’s health goals. It is crucial for the surgeon to explore the patient’s desired quality of life and overall prognosis to determine before recommending interventions. Patient Preferences The patient in our vignette was not provided with adequate education from the surgeon regarding the biopsy report and rationale for surgery. There is also no indication that the patient has the capacity to understand any information provided. Education was not given to the patient or family, and inquiry into the surgery or other treatment plans was not provided by the surgeon. The absence of informed consent along with no indication of concern for any input from the patient strips the patient of autonomy and prevents her from participating in her care (Varkey, 2021). Informed consent is a vital step involved with any procedure or intervention. “Informed consent is a voluntarily, revocable acceptance of an eligible individual’s participation in medical decision-making after receiving information about nature, goals, and consequences of a proposed treatment or procedure” (Moeini et al., 2020, para 7). Obtaining proper informed consent requires validation by the healthcare providers that the patient or the party responsible for the patient’s care have a sufficient understanding of the plan of care. Inappropriate or absence of education could result in unethical practices misaligned with the patient’s health goal and could lead to litigation (Lamont et al., 2019). Quality of Life The definition of quality of life is individualized based on a person’s lifestyle, experiences, ambitions, future aspirations, health goals, and well-being (Kassianos, 2022). The patient in this case vignette is unaware of her condition and its impact on her quality of life. As cited by Frezza in 2019, “principle of beneficence focuses on doing good for others and to take action for the best interest of the patient”. The surgeon should act with beneficence, informing the patient about her overall condition and prognosis. This would allow the patient to make an informed decision about her care without compromising her autonomy and preserving the greatest amount of quality of life. This is a vital point in a scenario where she might have a terminal condition and would not want to undergo invasive procedures. The patient should be ensured an open dialogue with the surgeon to thoroughly evaluate treatment options and rule out those that are too risky. Regardless of the patient’s decision for care, it is the obligation of the surgeon to fully inform the patient of all options. Only after all the information is provided can the patient make a truly informed decision in line with the life she wishes to live. Contextual Features Regardless of the patient’s capacity to understand the treatments plans, she may wish to discuss this will others prior to deciding, and she was limited in her time and access for further evaluation. When discussing the principal justice, it is defined as treating the patient with fairness (Warsaw, MD et al., 2022). The patient is not given a fair chance to evaluate any options or discuss the case with the surgeon before being forced into consent. Another consideration needs to be finances and access to care assistance. This can vary depending on the post operative care management and the support available to the patient. Surgery can be very expensive where she may not be able to afford it. Lastly, the patient’s ethnic or religious background may limit or restrict certain types of care which have been ignored by the surgeon. Despite the treatment route the physician may want to take, the “physician must accept the requirements of fairness contained in this principle” (Varkey, 2021, p. 21).

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."