Comments on: Bioethics Discussions: Case 1

By: Prudence

Prudence — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:45:04 +0000

I would have agreed to doing an emergency CS, but not without consent, and especially without a signed consent for procedure.

Like what have been said by the other commenters, the best plan perhaps would have been to ask the husband or the nearest kin to sign consent for the procedure, after due explanations, of course.

By: mitch

mitch — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:30:12 +0000

The concept of Bioethics has become a standard theme in House, M.D. (I’m sure you’ve heard of the TV show.) And granted that in many occasions Dr. House has managed to save his patients despite his constant violation of “codes and standards,” I believe that some doctors would still have the tendency to operate despite the absence of the patient’s consent.

In the mother’s case, the doctors can credit the operation to the preggy mom’s inability to make a decision due to emotional and mental distress (because of the horror that is placenta bleeding). The mother’s having no specific reason to deny operation is one indication of her lack of capacity to make a crucial medical decision, isn’t it?

Ultimately, isn’t saving lives what really matters in medicine? Methinks bioethics has some wiggle room in such cases as nothing is painted in black and white.

By: leni

leni — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:04:47 +0000

Hindi naman ako magiging doktor, pero kung ako, pipiliin ko din ang C-section para ma-save yung baby kahit ayaw nung nanay. What if, the baby dies tapos nagka-complications, tapos hindi na sya maging pregnant ulit? Parang ang liit na kapalit ng scar for the life of a child. Wala lang. Not the issue pero naisip ko lang. hehe.

PS: ang ganda ng colors ng blog mo ngayon. heehe.

By: chrysanthus herrera

chrysanthus herrera — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:26:39 +0000

as health care practitioners, we cannot do anything against a patient’s will. notwithstanding the principle of autonomy, we will be responsible for any sequelae stemming from a procedure performed against consent.

when faced with this situation, doctors must be able to secure the consent of the patient (through comprehensive explanation) or turf the patient. it is erroneous to say that we are reduced to medical commodities: we are, after all, able to explain to the patient the risks and benefits of any procedure. this is the “art” of medicine that our preceptors refer to all the time.

in order to cover legal bases, the doctors should have had the patient declared mentally unfit to make rational decisions (as certified by the psych rotators), and secured consent from a relative.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:54:25 +0000

You’d wonder what kind of preceptors people get for students nowadays. While there was no case filed, there is an actual criminal case that the state can file in behalf of the patient. Unless the patient were encephalopathic, and unless there were no legal surrogate decision makers present, MDs have no business tampering with the patient and go against her will.

A CS predisposes the patient to uterine scarring, which may rupture on the second pregnancy. It also gives her a scar that she would bear for the rest of her life.

The doctors in this case were blatantly wrong, and a good outcome (LBBB, or LBBG) does not justify their intrusion of the patient’s sovereignty.

By: J

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:33:56 +0000

I agree with the doctors’ decision.