Patients ought to receive assessment or transport and perhaps treatment to address suffering and health restoration, however, it is also widely agreed that individuals ought to be free to make their own decisions in receiving or rejecting treatments as long as they do not harm other people. Assessments and evaluation procedures are available to clinicians to determine autonomy of patients and decide on the appropriate actions when patients declines treatments that are beneficial for them, however, this process is aggravated when a patient refuses a beneficial treatment along with a scenario where autonomy cannot be assessed (Hurtst, 2004). In these cases, a patient’s refusal are followed by a recommendation to evaluate the patient’s ability to understand, reason and to logically decide on the options laid before them (Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998). There are risks involved in two main groups of patients in this issue, competent and incompetent patients. For example, considering that a patient has full autonomy when he or she does not, it puts the patient and perhaps the public at a considerable risk depending on circumstances (Hurtst, 2004). On the other hand, considering that a patient’s autonomy is impaired when he or she is not, the risk is not as significant in comparison to the aforementioned point. Patients may be insulted at the inaccuracy, however, an explanation to not put the patient at any risk would provide a reassurance and develop a sense of trust (Hurst 2004). There exists a mental status assessment as a guide for paramedics to consider a patient’s autonomy before making a decision. The Ambulance Victoria Clinical Practice Guideline (2016), lists several factors to observe such as appearance, behaviour, mood, thought flow,
Patients ought to receive assessment or transport and perhaps treatment to address suffering and health restoration, however, it is also widely agreed that individuals ought to be free to make their own decisions in receiving or rejecting treatments as long as they do not harm other people. Assessments and evaluation procedures are available to clinicians to determine autonomy of patients and decide on the appropriate actions when patients declines treatments that are beneficial for them, however, this process is aggravated when a patient refuses a beneficial treatment along with a scenario where autonomy cannot be assessed (Hurtst, 2004). In these cases, a patient’s refusal are followed by a recommendation to evaluate the patient’s ability to understand, reason and to logically decide on the options laid before them (Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998). There are risks involved in two main groups of patients in this issue, competent and incompetent patients. For example, considering that a patient has full autonomy when he or she does not, it puts the patient and perhaps the public at a considerable risk depending on circumstances (Hurtst, 2004). On the other hand, considering that a patient’s autonomy is impaired when he or she is not, the risk is not as significant in comparison to the aforementioned point. Patients may be insulted at the inaccuracy, however, an explanation to not put the patient at any risk would provide a reassurance and develop a sense of trust (Hurst 2004). There exists a mental status assessment as a guide for paramedics to consider a patient’s autonomy before making a decision. The Ambulance Victoria Clinical Practice Guideline (2016), lists several factors to observe such as appearance, behaviour, mood, thought flow,