student choice case analysis 2

Running head: Informed Consent Policy in Healthcare 1

Informed Consent Policy in Healthcare 5

Informed Consent Policy in Healthcare

Institution:

Student’s name:

Date:

Policy Background

There is a great problem in management of informed consent processes in healthcare. Doctors and healthcare providers are required to seek informed consent from patients when administering care. Health care providers educate patients about their options and the risks and advantages of a surgery or intervention before obtaining their permission to carry out the procedure or intervention. US doctors are legally and ethically obligated to obtain informed consent from their patients in order to ensure that they have a say in how their bodies are treated. Assessment of patient comprehension, recommendation, and documentation are all part of obtaining informed consent. However, it becomes a problem when the patient is undergoing a complex medical procedure that may not be understood well by the patient or when there is urgency in administering care. In healthcare, patients are entitled to decisions made in relation to their care. The issue affects all patients irrespective of age and social class. Informed consent is applied across the entire healthcare system and must be managed efficiently. This makes the matter an important aspect that must be addressed with long term strategies to solve the problem once and for all. This include determining the strategies that have to be applied in creating awareness on informed consent among the healthcare providers in ensuring they all understood how to regulate informed consent as they carry out their role of provision of healthcare services (Castro et al, 2020).

Facts of the case

The medical malpractice lawsuit, Allen v. Harrison, 2016 is based on violation of informed consent in provision of health care services. Whether or not a patient's informed consent is required before a noninvasive or noninvasive course of treatment is one of the questions raised on certiorari review. Whether or whether a physician should communicate with a patient medically reasonable options that the doctor does not suggest is a central issue in the question posed by the court in the case (Justia, (2016).

When the client swallowed a nail by accident and filed a medical negligence suit, the hospital's emergency department doctor urged the Allen to "eat fiber and let the nail pass.". Neither the doctor nor the patient discussed endoscopic or surgical treatment for the swallowed nail. The patient was taken to a different emergency room because of the severity of his vomiting. An inflamed and burst colon necessitated emergency surgery to remove the nail. According to a complaint filed by Allen against Duncan Regional Hospital and one of its physicians, the hospital and physician were accused of medical malpractice and failing to get Allen's informed consent. It is possible that Allen would have chosen "no therapy or another course of treatment" if Physician had correctly communicated his results. The doctor contended that he had been entitled to judgment on Allen's claim of explicit consent as a matter of law in a petition for partial summary judgment. An informed consent claim can only be made if the defendant doctor performs an appropriate treatment on the plaintiff, according to the physician.

Reasoning and opinion

The court evaluated the two parties and how the applied the informed consent concept in the cases. When Physician relied on his professional decision-making and did not officially treat and caused Allen's injuries, informed consent could not be met. According to a physician, the Oklahoma laws did not require a physician to operate under informed consent if it was an emergency as in this case where there were no "options" for surgical intervention outside of the emergency department or their area of practice. There is no model for informed consent in circumstances where an attending physician does not act, according to the judgment.

Analysis

This case played a major role in history and in the progress of the US healthcare system particularly where informed consent is involved. Regardless of the physician's preference, a physician must reveal all medically feasible alternatives in order to properly fulfill his or her obligation to disclose. In the end, it's up to the patient, not the doctor, to decide what kind of treatment they receive. However, Allen's claim of informed consent was incorrectly rejected by the trial court. With this ruling in mind, the case has been remanded for further consideration (Kasperbauer et al, 2021).

It has raised major concerns among healthcare stakeholders on the prevailing conditions that should be met in determining informed consent and whether there is validity based on the prevailing circumstances. The court case led to the creation of awareness of the factors that are used in defining informed consent. There are three main standards used in determining informed consent. ‘(1) Subjective standard: What would this client need to clearly understand to make an educated decision? (2) Objective standard: What would this client need to know and comprehend? (2) Reasonable patient standard: What information would be necessary for the average patient to participate in the decision-making process? If one is regular doctor, what might one say about this procedure?’ (Jacquier et al, 2021).

Reference

Castro, C. F. D., Quintana, A. M., Olesiak, L. D. R., & München, M. A. B. (2020). Informed consent form in healthcare. Revista Bioética, 28, 522-530.

Jacquier, E., Laurent-Puig, P., Badoual, C., Burgun, A., & Mamzer, M. F. (2021). Facing new challenges to informed consent processes in the context of translational research: the case in CARPEM consortium. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 1-13.

Justia (2016). Allen v. Harrison. https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2016/111877.html

Kasperbauer, T. J., Schmidt, K. K., Thomas, A., Perkins, S. M., & Schwartz, P. H. (2021). Incorporating biobank consent into a healthcare setting: Challenges for patient understanding. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 12(2), 113-122.