Physicians are among the most respected, credible and extensively educated professionals throughout history, with little to no skepticism placed on their knowledge or practice. This unwavering confidence in their abilities has outlasted through centuries, giving physicians an overwhelming power in their judgment and knowledge. A privilege like this has led some physicians to dehumanize their patients by making decisions against their wishes and conduct unjust acts in their own best interest. Certainly, physicians, among other medical professionals receive years, if not decades of training, but years of rigorous training often overlook the incredibly complex legal and ethical aspects of medical practice in its entirety. Despite this undeniable
…show more content…
Robert Veatch argues that the term, informed consent is “merely a transitional concept” and requires modification and updating to properly suit this day and age (Veatch 636). Dr. Veatch does not believe it should be eradicated entirely, and instead states that, “time may have passed and newer, more enlightened formulations may be needed” (Veatch 636). Informed consent in the 21st century must begin to reflect a deeper aspect of medical ethics, which reaches beyond the medical practice in itself. “The clinician is still supposed to draw on his or her medical knowledge to determine what he or she believes is in the best interest of the patient” (Veatch, 638), which defines one of the most blatant and complicated issues with consent today. When physicians base the options and treatments given to patients on their own judgment and knowledge, automatically patients are limited to a specific and possibly unfit result. Not to mention the incredibly difficult situation of ‘surrogate’ decision making, when an appointed or chosen loved one makes decisions for someone deemed no longer capable of making their own, often in situations of terminal illness or traumatic injury. In these situations, the ‘decision-maker’ is forced to use the best interest standard, where they assume what their ill loved one would have wanted and aims to make choices following their wishes most closely. Seemingly this practice is ethical, as they are defying their own opinions and honoring the patient’s instead, however, this does not take into account for the fact that there is no “absolute assurance that the best choice has been made” (Veatch, 638). He suggests that the best interest standard should be replaced with a ‘reasonable’ interest standard, which balances the conflicting interests of relationships between patient and decision-maker and the complexity and subjectivity of their
Robert Veatch argues that the term, informed consent is “merely a transitional concept” and requires modification and updating to properly suit this day and age (Veatch 636). Dr. Veatch does not believe it should be eradicated entirely, and instead states that, “time may have passed and newer, more enlightened formulations may be needed” (Veatch 636). Informed consent in the 21st century must begin to reflect a deeper aspect of medical ethics, which reaches beyond the medical practice in itself. “The clinician is still supposed to draw on his or her medical knowledge to determine what he or she believes is in the best interest of the patient” (Veatch, 638), which defines one of the most blatant and complicated issues with consent today. When physicians base the options and treatments given to patients on their own judgment and knowledge, automatically patients are limited to a specific and possibly unfit result. Not to mention the incredibly difficult situation of ‘surrogate’ decision making, when an appointed or chosen loved one makes decisions for someone deemed no longer capable of making their own, often in situations of terminal illness or traumatic injury. In these situations, the ‘decision-maker’ is forced to use the best interest standard, where they assume what their ill loved one would have wanted and aims to make choices following their wishes most closely. Seemingly this practice is ethical, as they are defying their own opinions and honoring the patient’s instead, however, this does not take into account for the fact that there is no “absolute assurance that the best choice has been made” (Veatch, 638). He suggests that the best interest standard should be replaced with a ‘reasonable’ interest standard, which balances the conflicting interests of relationships between patient and decision-maker and the complexity and subjectivity of their