Case Study
The case A mature looking 14-year-old girl in the State of Massachusetts came to the hospital with her mother. The girl is on her mother’s medical insurance. After examination an initial diagnosis of bacterial urethritis was made and antibiotic treatment was started immediately. Further tests were ordered for pathogenic bacteria. A week later the girl returned to the hospital alone for the second time and the urethritis appeared to have improved. Her test result showed that she was infected with Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis. The doctor explained the results and the girl said she understood what was wrong. The doctor also explained to her that her partner also needed to be treated and cured to prevent reinfection. A week later, she came to the hospital for the third time with her mother but saw a doctor alone. She felt very well and told her doctor that her partner has started treatment at another health facility. She also told the doctor that her mother wants to discuss her illness …show more content…
This rule allows physicians to accept consent for treatment from the minor without having to inform their parents. Physicians should use this rule when they believe that it’s in the best interest of the child health and general wellbeing. In the case presented above if the physician chooses to give the minors’ health status to the mother or he chooses not to he would be applying the paternalistic principal. Which means that to his believe by hiding information from the parent or by giving the information requested by the parent the child wellbeing would be preserved. If the physician chooses to give up information to the parent he would be also taking away the right of autonomy from the minor. By the physician giving up the minors’ health status to parents the minor loses the ability of decide what’s better for
The case A mature looking 14-year-old girl in the State of Massachusetts came to the hospital with her mother. The girl is on her mother’s medical insurance. After examination an initial diagnosis of bacterial urethritis was made and antibiotic treatment was started immediately. Further tests were ordered for pathogenic bacteria. A week later the girl returned to the hospital alone for the second time and the urethritis appeared to have improved. Her test result showed that she was infected with Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis. The doctor explained the results and the girl said she understood what was wrong. The doctor also explained to her that her partner also needed to be treated and cured to prevent reinfection. A week later, she came to the hospital for the third time with her mother but saw a doctor alone. She felt very well and told her doctor that her partner has started treatment at another health facility. She also told the doctor that her mother wants to discuss her illness …show more content…
This rule allows physicians to accept consent for treatment from the minor without having to inform their parents. Physicians should use this rule when they believe that it’s in the best interest of the child health and general wellbeing. In the case presented above if the physician chooses to give the minors’ health status to the mother or he chooses not to he would be applying the paternalistic principal. Which means that to his believe by hiding information from the parent or by giving the information requested by the parent the child wellbeing would be preserved. If the physician chooses to give up information to the parent he would be also taking away the right of autonomy from the minor. By the physician giving up the minors’ health status to parents the minor loses the ability of decide what’s better for