Doctor's Duty

Re:In the US(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.05.25 4:15 (#19258059) (http://www2.blogger....00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.05.25 2:30)
This is not merely a hypothetical case. All humans are prone to any ailment. I myself agreed to be injected immunoglobulin after fully explained by the doctor the merit and risk the medicine has, and I was treated it after I signed in a confirmation card. Since blood products are made from human living blood, there's an inevitable risk of contamination by unknown viruses, or smaller viruses than the cartridge filter.
My decisin was purely based on the balance of risks how it differs in case of use or not to use this medicine. Some people refuse some treatment for their belief. Of course their belief has nothing to do with the judgement from medical viewpoint. In this case a doctor ought not to respect a patient's wish. Doctors ought to concern only the cases that relate to medical viewpoint, for example they ought to avoid the medicine that triggers anaphylaxis shock, etc.
But in reality, doctors won't do what their patients feel reluctant. Doctors need a patient's sign in some cases. That's informed consent, which relates to even a matter of euthanasia. But at the same time it's true that doctors have given a right to do whatever they believe it's appropriate in case of emergency. Difficult.
One of my close friends was recently suffered from mychoplasma pneumonia, I'm sure he refused any blood products in treatment.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters