Back to Search
Start Over
Unreasonable obstinacy: Ethical, deontological and forensic medical problems
- Source :
- Journal of Public Health Research, Vol 7, Iss 3 (2018), Journal of Public Health Research
- Publication Year :
- 2018
- Publisher :
- PAGEPress Publications, 2018.
-
Abstract
- Especially in oncology and in critical care, the provision of medical care can require therapeutic choices that could go beyond the patient’s will or intentions of the protection of his health, with the possible adoption of medical behaviors interpreted as unreasonable obstinacy or, at the opposite extreme, as euthanasia. In some cases, the demand for obstinate therapeutic services could come from the patient or from his relatives, in which case the dilemma arises for the health professional between rejecting such a request, in respect of their professional autonomy, or abiding by it for fear of a professional care responsibility for therapeutic abandonment. We analyzed and commented on emblematic clinical cases brought to court for alleged wrong medical conduct due to breach of the prohibition of unreasonable obstinacy. In healthcare it is impossible to fix a general rule defining any therapeutic act as appropriate, because on one hand there are technical assessments of medical competence, and on the other the perception of the patient and of his family members of the usefulness of the health care provided, which may be in contrast. The medical act cannot make treatments that are inappropriate for the needs of care or even be unreasonable; conversely, before the request by the patient or by his family members for disproportionate health services in relation to the results they may give in practice, in compliance with the legislative and deontological provisions, the doctor can refuse them, thus safeguarding both his decision-making autonomy and, therefore, his professional dignity. Significance for public healthThe aim of our research is to contribute to identify the technical parameters and the ethical and deontological aspects useful to qualify a treatment as obstinate, to ensure on the one hand a treatment process that does not exceed the patient's requests or expectations (especially if unexpressed), and on the other hand to protect health workers from charges of professional liability for overtreatment damages, while avoiding attitudes of defensive medicine. Reference to the current code of Italian medical deontology is helpful in making therapeutic choices. It recommends the physician not to undertake diagnostic procedures and therapeutic interventions that are clinically inappropriate and ethically disproportionate and against the current laws, according to which the patient cannot demand healthcare treatments contrary to the law, deontology and good clinical-care practices.
- Subjects :
- 0301 basic medicine
media_common.quotation_subject
self-determination
Safeguarding
Article
Competence (law)
03 medical and health sciences
Dignity
0302 clinical medicine
Informed consent
Health care
health care economics and organizations
media_common
business.industry
Abandonment (legal)
lcsh:Public aspects of medicine
informed consent
unreasonable obstinacy
lcsh:RA1-1270
advance directives
Therapeutic obstinacy, unreasonable obstinacy, informed consent, advance directives, self-determination
humanities
Dilemma
030104 developmental biology
advance directive
030220 oncology & carcinogenesis
Law
Therapeutic obstinacy
business
Psychology
Autonomy
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 22799036 and 22799028
- Volume :
- 7
- Issue :
- 3
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Journal of Public Health Research
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....8847573de79d7aca806148d4718d7c24