The Conflict Between Legal and Ethical Obligations of Providers, Essay Example

Do legal obligations to treat differ from ethical obligations to treat?

While every physician has the responsibility to care for every patient that requires their attention, it is also important to note that physicians do have their own decisions to make. Every physician responds to a “no duty rule” which means that a physician is not held responsible for the health status [of development or failure]of any particular patient unless he has agreed to create the contract and agreed to a particular course of relationship with the said individual needing his or her aid. Relatively, from a legal perspective, physicians are free to decline to treat a person based on their own decisions. In this case, legal obligations to treat are bounded by the willingness of both parties [the physician and the patient] to be involved in a case of medical agreement. On the other end, ethical obligations to treat a patient are defined under the course by which a physician intends to follow the responsibility he or she has taken oath on. Treating is of course a matter of life and death in some cases such as that of the case of Hurley v. Eddingfield. In this case, the physician had no legal responsibilities, nevertheless, in seeing the situation in a more ethical approach, the physician could be questioned as to how he recognizes his actual responsibility to the patient especially that during the time when his help was being asked for he did not really have no other appointments to attend to. Although he did have the right to refuse providing treatment, he could still be held liable for not being able to comprehend with his actual ethical duties as a physician.

Should the professional’s individual conscience have an impact on the practice of his or her professional obligations?

In the case of physicians, conscience plays a great role in defining their recognition of their own profession. This especially involves the consideration by which each professional is bound to recognize the worth of their work and the value of their being based on how much serious they are when it comes to assuring the completion of their responsibilities towards their stakeholders [in this case the patients]. Obligations are usually drawn down through legal measures, nevertheless, the ethical consideration of the professions regarding these obligations seal such guidelines and make them worth the recognition of belonging to that particular professional calling.

As an administrator, how will you deal with a practitioner’s conscientious objections to the provision of care?

While administrators are not supposed to force physicians as they handle their own decisions regarding their patients and the responsibilities towards them, they could still stand as mentors and advisers especially during times when crucial points of decision making are involved. Recognizing the role of the administrator to direct and guide could help the physicians have a better idea of how they should effectively handle requests from clients who specifically need their expert assistance. Relatively, in line with the principles of EMTALA, physicians ought to carry into consideration their levels of responsibility towards the society that they are aiming to serve. This would allow them to make sure that they put the welfare of others first ahead of their own conveniences, a matter that specifically defines the conscientious recognition of a physician’s being as a professional and as an individual. It is through following these guidelines that a physician becomes a more responsible being who is able to consider his own profession as a part of his own life and not simply as a source of income.

References

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (2009). “Revision: Hospital Definition of Physician”. Joint Commission Perspectives 29 (6): 6–7.

Medical Case Assessment Document. Hurley, Administrator, v. Eddingfield. No. 19,154. Supreme Court of Indiana 156 Ind. 416; 59 N.E. 1058; 1901 Ind. LEXIS 63.

Wachter R, Goldman L (1996). “The emerging role of “hospitalists” in the American health care system“. N Engl J Med 335 (7): 514–7.