Professionals are always confronted with ethical issues, and Dr. Kramer’s decision can have a lasting impact on Mr. Williams personal life. Dr. Kramer is caught between an unpleasant situation; therefore Dr. Kramer will have to decide and balance between the code of ethics and legal requirements. For Dr. Kramer to resolve her ethical conflict Dr. Kramer should have a serious discussion with Mr. Williams about the small risk of temporary impotence. Today Informed consent is a routine process required by law not only in the clinical setting but also research.
In the case of Mr. Williams, the main question is whether it is ethically reasonable to inform Mr. Williams of his temporary impotence if the drug is taken. Although Dr. Kramer asked for advice from another physician, Dr. Kramer’s decision could be damaging to Mr. Williams if she takes the advice that was given. This issue is more legal than efficient under Informed consent because a patient has the right to refuse, but needs to be informed about the risks involved. The facts, in this case, are that Mr. Williams is easy to talk, that has been coming to see Dr. Kramer since last year. Mr. Williams is an African American male with mild hypertension which could increase to a stroke if hypertension is not treated. It is unknown if Mr. Williams is exercising …show more content…
Kramer could learn more about the situation to have a better outcome. Even though it is a good idea that withholding the information from Mr. Williams will save him from purchasing high-priced medication, but it is an unethical decision. If Mr. Williams take the medication without knowing the possible side effects and Dr. Kramer is exposed later their relationship could be broken and Mr. Williams could be devastated. In this case, Dr. Kramer could tell Mr. Williams about the different options and let Mr. Williams talk it over with his wife. Dr. Kramer will not be in a difficult situation trying to decide for Mr.
In the case of Mr. Williams, the main question is whether it is ethically reasonable to inform Mr. Williams of his temporary impotence if the drug is taken. Although Dr. Kramer asked for advice from another physician, Dr. Kramer’s decision could be damaging to Mr. Williams if she takes the advice that was given. This issue is more legal than efficient under Informed consent because a patient has the right to refuse, but needs to be informed about the risks involved. The facts, in this case, are that Mr. Williams is easy to talk, that has been coming to see Dr. Kramer since last year. Mr. Williams is an African American male with mild hypertension which could increase to a stroke if hypertension is not treated. It is unknown if Mr. Williams is exercising …show more content…
Kramer could learn more about the situation to have a better outcome. Even though it is a good idea that withholding the information from Mr. Williams will save him from purchasing high-priced medication, but it is an unethical decision. If Mr. Williams take the medication without knowing the possible side effects and Dr. Kramer is exposed later their relationship could be broken and Mr. Williams could be devastated. In this case, Dr. Kramer could tell Mr. Williams about the different options and let Mr. Williams talk it over with his wife. Dr. Kramer will not be in a difficult situation trying to decide for Mr.