This video touches on the difficulty of maintaining patient autonomy in the scope of what a physician would deem “futile care”. We guide our practice by the principle of patient autonomy, where we recognize a patient’s rights to make decisions about their own healthcare. This becomes increasingly difficult when patients are not able to make these decisions, but multiple family members and spouses are present expressing their wishes for the patient. They present an interesting example where while physicians by and large act in the best interest of the patients, doctors with a different specialty may believe differently about the efficacy of treatment. They share that an internist and oncologist may disagree on the benefit of running another round of chemo on a cancer patient who is truly at the end of their battle. While non maleficence guides our intervention choices, and we may no agree with the utility of the aforementioned treatment, a patient’s autonomy must be preserved in this case and if they want another round of chemo, we as providers should be willing to grant this wish. There are limits to autonomy, as we will not give drugs to those that demand them but we do not feel they are appropriate for their care.
They need to remember that patients are the customers. We can refuse treatment at any time and refuse to pay bills for appointments. It is up to the patient you can guide the patient with options, but it is up to the patient. You need to work with them regardless of circumstances, or they will leave and find a place that works with them, and they can very easily post on social media and you can lose a huge amount of customers.
This video touches on the difficulty of maintaining patient autonomy in the scope of what a physician would deem “futile care”. We guide our practice by the principle of patient autonomy, where we recognize a patient’s rights to make decisions about their own healthcare. This becomes increasingly difficult when patients are not able to make these decisions, but multiple family members and spouses are present expressing their wishes for the patient. They present an interesting example where while physicians by and large act in the best interest of the patients, doctors with a different specialty may believe differently about the efficacy of treatment. They share that an internist and oncologist may disagree on the benefit of running another round of chemo on a cancer patient who is truly at the end of their battle. While non maleficence guides our intervention choices, and we may no agree with the utility of the aforementioned treatment, a patient’s autonomy must be preserved in this case and if they want another round of chemo, we as providers should be willing to grant this wish. There are limits to autonomy, as we will not give drugs to those that demand them but we do not feel they are appropriate for their care.
They need to remember that patients are the customers. We can refuse treatment at any time and refuse to pay bills for appointments. It is up to the patient you can guide the patient with options, but it is up to the patient. You need to work with them regardless of circumstances, or they will leave and find a place that works with them, and they can very easily post on social media and you can lose a huge amount of customers.
well that was superficial