Reference no: EM133418382

Clinical case

Patient Doctor Genís is an oncologist and researcher who works in a health center. You are making a home visit to a patient diagnosed with lung cancer three years ago with a poor prognosis. For a month he has started with severe headaches. There is a possibility of brain metastases. The patient tells the doctor that he does not want to go to the hospital, that he does not want to have any more tests. The doctor accepts the uncertainty and decides not to perform any tests, thinking that it will not change the prognosis of the disease.

However, the doctor is experimenting with laboratory mice for a drug to treat the patient's condition. As part of the results that the doctor has obtained in his experimental laboratory, he has advanced a drug to treat brain metastasis in mice. The doctor saw an opportunity to expand his research in humans and injected the patient with the drug without his knowledge. The patient died after two months. Questions to answer using inferences after evaluating the case

Questions:

1 . Identify and explain the bioethical principles involved in the problem?

The fundamental ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice are part of the bioethical considerations of the case. In healthcare terms, autonomy refers to the patient's right to make informed decisions for themselves. In this case, the patient had made it clear that he did not want additional tests, and the physician respected this choice by refraining from ordering them.

The act of benefiting the patient or doing good for him is known as beneficence. In this case, the doctor had created a novel drug to treat brain metastases in mice and thought it would be useful for the patient's condition. Avoiding harm is based on the idea of non- maleficence. The patient in this case received the drug from the doctor without his knowledge, and two months later passed away, indicating that the drug may have been dangerous to the patient's health.

Justice involves treating all patients fairly and equally. In this case, the doctor saw an opportunity to further his research on people by secretly injecting the patient with a new drug he had discovered to treat brain metastases. Since the patient was not given the opportunity to fully consider the drug or consent to its use, this move could be seen as unfair to him.

Ultimately, the physician may have taken into account the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice when deciding whether to inject the patient without his knowledge. By infringing on the patient's autonomy, the physician's actions can be considered unethical. Since they can significantly affect the life and well-being of the patient, medical decisions must be made with ethics in mind.

2 . What bioethical principles, standards, agreements, codes and declarations are related or applied in this case?

The International Code of Medical Ethics, the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report are some of the bioethical principles, standards, agreements, regulations, and statements that are relevant or applicable to this topic.

The World Medical Association adopted the International Code of Medical Ethics in 1949, which states that "a physician should respect the autonomy of the patient and should not perform any medical procedure without the informed consent of the patient." In this case, the physician violated the patient's autonomy by performing a medical procedure without the patient's consent.

The Nuremberg Code, which was adopted in 1947, specifies that any medical experiment must have the "voluntary consent" of the subject, which is absolutely necessary. This code is applicable because the doctor administered the substance to the patient by injection without his knowledge, which could be considered medical experimentation.

In medical research involving human subjects, the Declaration of Helsinki, which was ratified by the World Medical Association in 1964, states that "the interests of the subject must prevail over all other considerations." This code of conduct is applicable in this case because the doctor's choice to inject the drug into the patient without his knowledge can be interpreted as taking precedence over the patient's interests in him.

Respect for people requires that subjects, to the best of their ability, have the opportunity to choose what will or will not happen to them, according to the Belmont Report, which was adopted by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1979. This code applies to this case because the patient was not given the choice of whether or not to receive the medication by injection.

The International Code of Medical Ethics, the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report are just a few examples of bioethical principles, standards, agreements, regulations, and statements that are relevant to or apply to this topic. These guidelines serve as an example of how crucial it is to respect patient autonomy and make sure that their needs come before all others.

3 . What options, actions or considerations based on bioethics would you apply in the case?

In this situation, many alternatives, measures and considerations from bioethics must be used.

The first option is to respect patient autonomy and give them the freedom to decide about their own medical care after doing their research. The patient must have received a detailed explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of the drug so that he can decide for himself whether or not to receive an injection.

The second option is to make sure that the interests of the patient come first and outweigh all other factors. Before deciding to inject the drug into the patient without his knowledge, the doctor should have carefully weighed the possible risks and benefits of the drug.

Ensuring that the patient can give informed consent is the third alternative. Before deciding to inject the drug into the patient without the patient's knowledge, the physician should have reviewed the potential dangers and benefits.