z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Unreasonable Obstinacy: Ethical, Deontological and Forensic Medical Problems
Author(s) -
Claudia Casella,
Vincenzo Graziano,
Pierpaolo Di Lorenzo,
Emanuele Capasso,
Massimo Niola
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
deleted journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.579
H-Index - 13
ISSN - 2279-9028
DOI - 10.4081/jphr.2018.1460
Subject(s) - safeguarding , autonomy , dignity , health care , competence (human resources) , dilemma , abandonment (legal) , medicine , psychology , nursing , ethical dilemma , medical law , beneficence , law , social psychology , psychiatry , political science , philosophy , epistemology
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 y 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 . 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 ; 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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom