When Vivian was given the news of her illness, I do not believe that the process of informed consent was done well. I feel that it was done rather poorly. Vivian’s doctor fails to offer her any other routes of treatment – palliative or otherwise. Vivian is only told one option – a radical chemotherapy regimen that will be used for research purposes. Vivian was in a state of shock, unable to even process her diagnosis, and her doctor failed to recognize that. There are many parts to informed consent and simply telling the patient about one modality of treatment is not a part of it. The patient should be informed of, and understand, the treatment they are seeking, any risks they are taking in agreeing to a certain treatment, etc. Vivian got neither.
…show more content…
Jason, as a fellow, only views Vivian as a research subject – not an individual. He doesn’t care for Vivian as humanely as one would believe an aspiring doctor should. Although research is a large part of healthcare, Vivian was not regarded or treated very well by Jason. He was rather cold and thought of Vivian as just a number. This is shown when Vivian was in isolation and close to her death – he doesn’t try to console Vivian when she is in pain and suffering. Susie is the only healthcare provider that affirms Vivian’s dignity. She talks to Vivian like the real person she is, she advocates for Vivian when Jason pushes another round of chemotherapy (saying she doesn’t think it would be a good idea because Vivian was neutropenic and in bad shape in general), and listens to her when no one else would. Their contrast is best shown when one considers that Susie was the individual that proposed the DNR code status so that Vivian wouldn’t have to suffer, while Jason called a code to preserve his research subject. The ethical issue in the film that impacted me the most was definitely it being within the patient’s hands to deny treatment at all. Unfortunately, it seemed that Vivian was never given the option of denying treatment or stopping her chemotherapy treatments. Vivian was never educated on palliative care, she was essentially coerced
Jason, as a fellow, only views Vivian as a research subject – not an individual. He doesn’t care for Vivian as humanely as one would believe an aspiring doctor should. Although research is a large part of healthcare, Vivian was not regarded or treated very well by Jason. He was rather cold and thought of Vivian as just a number. This is shown when Vivian was in isolation and close to her death – he doesn’t try to console Vivian when she is in pain and suffering. Susie is the only healthcare provider that affirms Vivian’s dignity. She talks to Vivian like the real person she is, she advocates for Vivian when Jason pushes another round of chemotherapy (saying she doesn’t think it would be a good idea because Vivian was neutropenic and in bad shape in general), and listens to her when no one else would. Their contrast is best shown when one considers that Susie was the individual that proposed the DNR code status so that Vivian wouldn’t have to suffer, while Jason called a code to preserve his research subject. The ethical issue in the film that impacted me the most was definitely it being within the patient’s hands to deny treatment at all. Unfortunately, it seemed that Vivian was never given the option of denying treatment or stopping her chemotherapy treatments. Vivian was never educated on palliative care, she was essentially coerced