4.4 Article

Radiation in an emergency situation: attempting to respect the patient's beliefs as reported by a minor

期刊

BMC MEDICAL ETHICS
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-023-00962-5

关键词

Emergency service; Informed consent; Radiation; Treatment refusal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual health-related beliefs can greatly impact the patient-clinician relationship. Conflicts between patient preferences and medical care recommendations create ethical dilemmas, especially in emergencies. Saving the patient's life should be prioritized, but the validity of advance directives should be considered.
BackgroundEach individual's unique health-related beliefs can greatly impact the patient-clinician relationship. When there is a conflict between the patient's preferences and recommended medical care, it can create a serious ethical dilemma, especially in an emergency setting, and dramatically alter this important relationship.Case presentationA 56-year-old man, who remained comatose after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, was rushed to our hospital. The patient was scheduled for emergency coronary angiography when his adolescent daughter reported that she and her father held sincere beliefs against radiation exposure. We were concerned that she did not fully understand the potential consequences if her father did not receive the recommended treatment. A physician provided her with in depth information regarding the risks and benefits of the treatment. While we did not want to disregard her statement, we opted to save the patient's life due to concerns about the validity of her report.ConclusionsVariations in beliefs regarding medical care force clinicians to incorporate patient beliefs into medical practice. However, an emergency may require a completely different approach. When faced with a patient in a life-threatening condition and unconscious, we should take action to prioritize saving their life, unless we are highly certain about the validity of their advance directives.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据