The autonomy-beneficial conflicts between Rose and Andrew range from Rose’s initiative to be the surrogate persona to her mother in making informed consent or informed refusal on her behalf based on the interests of her mother, and that notwithstanding, she is pragmatic in assessing the proficiency of undertaking a life support ordeal for her frail mother who is not only aged, diseased but also suffering from respiratory distress as opposed to Andrew’s daring outlook of concurring with the doctors in the idea of placing her mother on a life-support equipment, including a ventilator. In this front, one can almost applaud Andrew because he is not only sympathetic to Rose’s mother- wishing her quick recovery, but he is also considerate of the doctor’s professional opinion concerning the dilemma.
Although from the situation it is apparent that the doctor’s and Andrew’s opinion outweigh Rose’s choice, it is Rose alone who is privileged with the right to make the ultimate decision on behalf of her mother. This follows from the legal framework governing ethical practice in long term care, which mandates Rose to be the surrogate persona on behalf of her mother under the power of the attorney. It is in this view that Rose takes the interests, attitudes and preferences of her mother in making the aforementioned informed refusal choice.
The ethical concerns are cross-cutting ranging from proper observance of the established legal framework – which bestows the right to making informed choices of either consent or refusal to the client, upholding competency in health service provision-availing quality medical services and guaranteeing client satisfaction, to, maintaining confidentiality in all therapeutic relationships (Charles, 2007, p.1).
It is the duty of doctors to safeguard their client’s information by adhering to the laid out rules and regulations concerning the maintenance of confidentiality in all medical relationships. Such information is not just limited to the client’s personal issues but also includes safe custody of the client’s medical records (Charles, 2007, p.1).
The maintenance of confidentiality has many positive attributes to both the client and the physician, For instance, in keeping a client’s medical and psychological state secretive, the physician not only boosts the client’s self esteem but also accommodates and encourages openness in each interactive session with the client (Jeffrey, 2009, p. 1). As the custodian of the medical records of a client, a doctor through maintaining a good confidentiality profile earns the credit of being an outstanding, trustworthy and reliable service provider and thus attracts clients as a certified service provider in his/her medical domain (Jeffrey, 2009, p. 1). That notwithstanding, in keeping secret the records of the client, the doctor is in a better position to track therapeutic progress of his/her client and thereby give noble and effective prescriptions to avert whichever psychological challenge oppressing his/her client.
The issues governing informed consent or refusal dictate that before carrying out any medical process, a doctor must provide the right information concerning the competency of the serving team, the inherent risks involved and the degree of success in any medical operation (Charles, 2007, p.1). With such information at hand, it is only the client/patient who is authorized with the legal right to make informed consent or refusal choice. In the event that the client/patient is incapable of making the choice, then it is within the provisions of the law for an attorney to authorize a surrogate persona to make such an informed decision on behalf of the patient. This is because all medical responsibility and benefits are vested on the patient and the law honors it.
Reference List
Charles, S. (2007). Informed Consent. Web.
Jeffrey, B. (2009). Ethics Codes on Confidentiality in Psychotherapy and Counseling. Web.