Introduction
In medical practice, the term autonomy usually refers to the right of older adults to make their own decisions about the mode of treatment to be offered. This facilitates a smooth diagnostic process by enabling cooperation between patients and healthcare providers (Soofi 475). In some cases, cultural perspectives and beliefs influence decision-making, and some patients may be reluctant when specific procedures are to be performed on their bodies.
For instance, an amputation may be needed for the patient, but due to contradictory reasons, they refuse it. Such scenarios need an examination of both parties’ autonomic factors. Since doctors must follow the code of ethics, they can consider the benefits and risks to the patient and make a neutral decision that respects the patient’s autonomy. This paper analyzes Faden and Beauchamp’s ideas on autonomy and an application of care ethics theory by nurses in the healthcare profession.
Scenario Background
Mr. Q is a 55-year-old man with a severe infection in his left forearm following an earlier injury. Doctors warn that without amputation, the condition could worsen and become life-threatening. Despite consistent medical advice, Mr. Q insists the arm will heal on its own and refuses surgery. Two independent psychiatric evaluations confirm that he is mentally competent and capable of making medical decisions.
Faden and Beauchamp’s Analysis of Autonomy
Faden and Beauchamp proposed two explanations for understanding the concept of autonomy. In the case presented, the two types of informed consent of autonomy being questioned include effective and autonomous authorization (Bolt et al. 294). The first case allows the healthcare professional to decide what should be done to a patient despite their decisions. In this case, they have the required expertise and knowledge to weigh the benefits and risks associated with amputation. The opinions of a patient regarding the type of medication and procedures to be offered are critical, as they affect overall health status.
The second form of autonomy requires that the patient decide on the procedure to be taken on his body without compromise. They must be aware of the nature of the process and should not be influenced in any manner in the decision-making process. Faden and Beauchamp’s analysis of autonomy explains the need to consider the opinions of patients and healthcare providers before making a final decision. The nurses must consider Mr. Q’s fears and desires, but this should be the only basis for treatment. Other factors, such as associated risks, can be considered, and relevant advice to the patient can influence their decisions.
Mr. Q presented with a complicated case to understand whether his denial of amputation was an autonomous decision. His foot is in a critical condition with gangrene, and failure to respond to treatment will lead to more complications. As a result, healthcare professionals must consider several factors before making an informed decision.
Firstly, Mr. Q might not be fully aware of his condition and the associated risks, leading him to refuse treatment. Additionally, he might not know whether this amputation is the best decision. Alternatively, Mr. Q might doubt the healthcare professional’s ideas and beliefs, and he might see himself as the final judge in this case.
According to Faden and Beauchamp, informed consent is less satisfying. It does not examine whether consent was applicable in the case being examined, but instead is based on research findings and expected outcomes (Sledge 58). Circumstances are compared without being compared to any instances.
In the context of autonomous authorization, a particular case is considered. Autonomous consent has been illustrated when the patient examines the possible consequences before agreeing with the nurses. The patient is cautious of the side effects, such as psychological torture and emotional breakdown. Mr. Q made an autonomous decision by refusing an amputation on his arm. He believes his decisions are the most appropriate as they have fewer side effects on his body, and refuses to accept the healthcare professional’s advice.
Care Ethics Theory
The ethics of care is an essential aspect of the medical field. The concept of moral actions plays a central role in patients’ decision-making and medication. The care ethics theory aims to create and maintain a contextually grounded relationship between care recipients and doctors, promoting effective social relationships (Zhu et al. 1981). The theory ensures that vulnerable patients in hospital facilities are involved in decision-making regarding diagnostic matters. The patients must be allowed to consider what is best for them and the possible side effects of the treatment.
As an ethical consultant handling Mr. Q’s case, I would consider her opinions and ask questions about his views. From the care ethics theory perspective, Mr. Q’s wishes aim to protect him from the effects of amputation. According to him, performing the stated act can lead to death, which is against his wishes. The condition has worsened and will likely spread to other parts, but this is not a big worry for him. He would rather remain with the condition than accept amputation for his emotional and psychological well-being.
Allowing the healthcare professionals to operate on him forcefully will be against the code of ethics in medicine. The regulations stipulate that the individual differences between patients and their background attributes must be respected for efficiency (Wilson et al. 70). Therefore, leaving his leg alone is the most appropriate action that favors his autonomy. He has the right to determine the procedure on his body. Additionally, his mental state can be affected if the professionals decide to amputate him, making the effects outweigh the benefits.
Since the decision-making process has been accredited to me, I would inform my team why the expert opinions do not favor amputating Mr. Q’s arm. An explanation of the components of the care ethics theory will be illustrated to better understand the choice made. Further, I will emphasize the need to consider the unique preferences of patients for effective medication. The need to be cautious while dealing with patients from varying cultures will be explained for further understanding. Additionally, nursing ethics should be a guideline for all healthcare professionals in the hospital setting. Failure to obey the set ethics can lead to punishments such as fines, imprisonment, and deployment by relevant authorities.
Conclusion
In summary, the autonomy of patients and healthcare providers is a leading aspect in ensuring quality services in the health field. Most patients present cases daily, requiring decision-making procedures for effective quality services. Failure to create an understanding between the two parties leads to conflicts and lower self-esteem for the target victims. However, nurses should not only examine the patient’s preferences alone, as this may contradict some requirements.
In the case provided, Mr. Q feared amputation as he felt it was not the solution for his arm. By respecting his autonomous views, the nurses obeyed his ideas. The treatment plan also utilized the care ethics theory, emphasizing respecting patients’ opinions.
Works Cited
Bolt, Ineke L, et al. “Informed Decision-Making and Capabilities in Population-Based Cancer Screening.” Public Health Ethics, vol. 15, no. 3, 2022, pp. 289–300.
Sledge, Renata, et al. “A Systematic Literature Review of Relational Autonomy in Dialysis Decision Making.” Health & Social Work, vol. 47, no. 1, 2021, pp. 53–61.
Soofi, Hojjat. “Respect for Autonomy and Dementia Care in Nursing Homes: Revising Beauchamp and Childress’s Account of Autonomous Decision-Making.” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, vol. 19, no. 3, 2022, pp. 467–479.
Wilson, Rhonda L., et al. “A Call for Nurses and Interdisciplinary Collaborators to Urgently Respond to the Health and Well‐Being Needs of Refugees across the World.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 78, no. 3, 2022, pp. 50-99.
Zhu, Yongyue, et al. “Spiritual Leadership, Autonomous Motivation and Employee Craftsmanship Spirit: The Cross-Level Moderating Effect of Caring Ethical Climate.” Psychology Research and Behavior Management, vol. 15, 2022, pp. 1971–1988.