For this assignment, you will prepare a written document response to a case study that describes the various types of individual rights associated with the healthcare system. Please follow the instructions below and prepare your document. Be sure to save in .doc or .docx format, and to follow APA guidelines.
*To view the grading rubric for this discussion, click the name of the discussion, then click “Grading Information”
In Module 4, learned about individual rights and rights of patients in the U.S.
Review the Canterbury decision and answer these questions. Module 4 Case Study Cantebury vs Spence.pdf Module 4 Case Study Cantebury vs Spence.pdf – Alternative Formats
Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why or why not?
What do you believe causes states not to follow the Canterbury court’s patient-oriented standard of informed consent?
Please include your response to the questions at the end of the case study.
How to solve
IIT Individual Health Care Rights Case Study
In the case study titled “Canterbury vs Spence,” the court made a decision regarding individual rights and the rights of patients in the healthcare system. This assignment requires us to review the case study, analyze the court’s decision, and express our agreement or disagreement with it. Additionally, we are asked to provide insights into the reasons behind states not following the patient-oriented standard of informed consent set by the Canterbury court. Let’s delve into these questions and provide well-reasoned responses.
Answer to Question 1:
Regarding the court’s decision in the Canterbury case, I agree with the ruling. The court held that physicians have a duty to disclose information that a reasonable patient would deem necessary in making an informed decision about their treatment. This patient-oriented standard of informed consent is crucial in ensuring that patients have the autonomy to make well-informed choices about their healthcare.
The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of respecting individual rights and recognizing the patient’s right to be actively involved in their own healthcare decisions. By upholding this standard, the court promotes a patient-centered approach that empowers individuals and fosters a stronger doctor-patient relationship.
Answer to Question 2:
The failure of some states to follow the Canterbury court’s patient-oriented standard of informed consent can be attributed to several factors. One possible reason is the varying interpretation and application of medical laws and regulations across different states. The healthcare system is complex, and each state may have its own unique legal framework pertaining to informed consent.
Moreover, healthcare providers may face pressure to prioritize time efficiency and cost-effectiveness, sometimes leading to a disregard for thorough informed consent procedures. In certain instances, physicians and healthcare institutions might opt for a more paternalistic approach, assuming that they know what is best for the patient without fully involving them in the decision-making process.
Additionally, some states may have limited resources or inadequate educational programs for healthcare professionals regarding informed consent practices. A lack of standardized guidelines or guidelines that are not regularly updated could contribute to the divergence from the Canterbury court’s patient-oriented standard.
In conclusion, the court’s decision in the Canterbury case aligns with the principles of patient autonomy and involvement in healthcare decision-making. However, the reasons for states not following this standard can be attributed to various legal, practical, and resource-related challenges within the healthcare system. It is essential to address these factors to ensure consistent adherence to patient-centered standards of informed consent.