Momeyer's Article On Informed Consent

Every patient has a right to decide on their own course of treatment and freely consent to that treatment. In order to make an educated decision they must be provided with the proper information to make an informed choice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). It is the physician’s legal and ethical obligation to provide this information when making their recommendation on treatment. The choices given must be in accordance with good medical practice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). The informed consent is the legal policy, either written or verbal, that gives full disclosure of all the information including potential risks that is applicable to the patient’s condition and treatment being offered (Kazmier, 2008).

Notably, Jehovah Witness patients’ religious teachings prohibit their believers from Blood transfusion, euthanasia, autopsy and Artificial insemination. These medical practices are against the Biblical teachings of the Jehovah Witness since they consider them to be unholy. Further, they believe the medical interventions to interfere with God’s intentions for human life hence they disallow their followers from practicing

A common factor researchers are aware on to carry their study is informed consent. It can be agreed upon the remark that, further action on continuing a proposal without this step is not approved. In the play write, Informed Consent by Deborah Zoe Laufer, the Arizona State University study on the Havasupai tribe is depicted, and shows that their research found more than enough data from a sampling of the Havasupai tribe's blood. The research was said to be focused on the cause of the tribe's vast case of diabetes type two. Consent was a main issue on how the research was carried, that made the outcome of the research unethical. The character Jillian was shown to be in charge of the conduction of the study process, making missteps

Explain how and why the concept of informed consent is critical to issues of euthanasia (active and passive) as well as physician-assisted suicide. Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person, autonomy at its best. In physician assisted suicide we have the informed consent of the patient requesting the help to die. In this instance the patient is the direct cause or their own death, they just require the physician to help them get the medicine needed to end their life, they decide where and when to do it, and they are competent when making this decision. This is important when it comes to the law and the physician possibly being sued. In active euthanasia the physician gives

“Respect for human beings involves giving due scope to peoples capacity to make their own decisions. In the research context, this normally requires that participation be the result of a choice made by the participants” (NHMR, 2007, p.3).  Freegard 2012 (p.60), states that “respecting the rights of others,” includes a responsibility for Health professionals “to let others know about their rights” and that this forms the basis of an informed consent.

According to Faden and Beauchamp, what is the difference between Sense1 and Sense2 of informed consent?

For many people Christianity is the religion of choice and a way of life. Jehovah?s Witnesses are one subgroup of the Christian faith. The JW religion was founded in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell. They comprise 1.2 million of the U.S. population (Campbell, Y., Machan M., & Fisher, M., 2016). They present a unique challenge to the medical community because of their stance on blood transfusions. Part I will provide a

Another issue with the implementation of Informed consent arises when the patient waives the right to Informed consent and leaves the right to make the decision on the physician. Though legally correct, this can cause psychological stress for the physician especially when the decision is about a life threatening medical condition. Moreover, this also makes the patient vulnerable to abuse. (Manthous, DeGirolamo, 2003)

If a Jehovah witness comes into the hospital in need of a blood transfusion the doctors and nurses must respect the patient’s wishes not to have a blood transfusion.

INFORMED CONSENT : Valid consent is impossible. To date, foetal tissue transplants have been handled as any other organ transplants under the UAGA, thus requiring consent of next of kin. The mother cannot give morally legitimate consent, since she initiated the termination of the pregnancy. Elimination of consent, however, would further turn the unborn child into an object; it would be inconsistent with the fact that, biologically, the developing foetus does not interpret the woman’s tissue. The UAGA and the NIH Panel both fail to discern the conflict between normal organ transplants and the function of foetal tissue. In the instance of foetal tissue, the mother is presumed to be the one who gives consent to the use of the tissue for the transplant (or for some other kind of experimentation). Granting to the normal understanding of proxy consent, her role assumes that she is working in the best interest of the unborn child. However, she is also the one who has initiated the final termination of pregnancy. Just quoting the part of the act dealing with informed consent stated in the NewZealand legislation

The purpose of this paper is to identify the characteristics, values and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witness group. It will discuss their reasoning for refusal to accept blood transfusions. The paper will elaborate on the best approach to offer appropriate care, advice and education while treating patients with respect in regards to their religious beliefs. British Journal of Nursing (2009) suggests that good, honest communication, without any element of coercion or scare tactics, is the key in the management of Jehovah’s Witness patients.

Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed

According to the first principle, nonmaleficience, it would not be appropriate as a professional to practice medicine based on his or her own beliefs and not consider the patients feelings about the operation. In this particular case, regarding religious constrictions the doctor must decide if the patients’ needs outweigh the ethical belief of nonmaleficience. Asserting empathy in this case could prove to be a problem. How does a person wholly understand the beliefs of another when they have not been exposed to those beliefs and culture that supplied this person with their values of living? Understanding a patient’s background can significantly impact a decision. If a doctor were to treat a Jehovah Witness with blood they need to understand the impact they would be having on their patient’s life.

Am actual account of religious beliefs and shunning of medical treatment was first recorded in 2009 with a Northeast Philadelphia family. The family whose religion shunned traditional medicine allowed an infant son to pass away at a nearby hospital. In 2009 according to an article published in the Newsworks Philadelphia Newspaper written by

Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.