Developing Osteopathic Practice Assessment - Case Study Example

Developing Osteopathic Practice Assessment: Ethics Case Based Essay Developing Osteopathic Practice Assessment: Ethics Case Based Essay Part 1 As a registered osteopath, I act according to the professional guidelines and requirements in the GOsC Osteopathic Practice Standards. For this case I opt to continue with treatment of Mr. Robinson despite the threats issued by Mrs. Castle on reporting my actions for malpractice. My decision is made based on Duty-based or Deontological ethics of Osteopathic Practice. As seen in the research conducted by Stone (2005), Duty-based or Deontological ethics works on the premise that one’s actions are done simply because they are right. An individual, in this case an osteopath does them because their actions are the right actions. In my case, professional records clearly indicate that I have been treating Mr. Robinson for a considerable amount of time. Disrupting the treatment is wrong, and justifying the action by arguing that Mr. Robinson is suffering from Alzheimer disease is wrong. The consent was given by Mr. Robinson prior to his condition, and no form of action can validate my decision is wrong. Based on Duty-based or Deontological ethics, my action is justified because this ethical guideline advocates for keeping promises and allowing the death of innocent people (Stone, 2005). Mr. Robinson asked that I continue with his treatment even in his stay in the nursing home, and I am obliged to do the same. In this regard, I am of the opinion that by treating Mr. Robinson I am right, other legal actions may follow. Going by the General Osteopathic Council (2012) (clause C2), I am justified to treat Mr. Robinson as I have designed an appropriate osteopathic treatment plan that will allow me treat my patient in relation to their history of disease. From the clause C2 1.3, I will also have maintained the professional standards by granting Mr. Robinson’s wish as well as making sure that I have employed the best approaches to care for my patient (General Osteopathic Council, 2012). The virtuous physician as described by Gelhaus (2012) is one who determines the moral worth of their actions in circumstances that may seem in one way or another extremely intricate. Through application of virtues as Gelhaus (2012) indicates, I would actually lead a fulfilling life if I treat Mr. Robinson since it takes courage to treat a patient like him, even with the challenges of facing the law in question. A virtuous physician needs to embrace empathy that allows the physician understand what the patient feels. I strongly feel for Mr. Robinson especially after going through a series of conditions since childhood such as polio to Alzheimer. I am justified to treat Mr. Robinson as I take him as an individual person with a unique case. On the other hand, consequentialism works on the grounds that one’s actions are judged on the correctness of the conduct (Darwall, 2002). A moral action is, therefore, one that produces a positive outcome. My treating Mr. Robinson will indeed bring out positive outcomes since I am well conversant with the patient’s condition on a long term basis. As a registered osteopath, I am expected to embrace the virtue of care and compassion. In the research conducted by Gelhaus (2012), compassion involves the virtuous physician working on the basis of professional empathy on the patients that allows the physician treat the patients as expected. I have deep compassion for Mr. Robinson; thus, will apply compassion as part of the professional attitude in treating him. Additionally, care is a characteristic of virtuous physicians (Gelhaus, 2012; Wolff, 2014). I choose to treat Mr. Robinson since I dearly care for him. Treating him affirms that I am not only moral but also emotive in my profession. In line with these guidelines, I still stick to my decision to treat Mr. Robinson despite the negative manner in which Mrs. Castle views my decision to continue with the treatment. The four principles as proposed by Beauchamp & Childress (2001) are applicable to the case of Mr. Robinson’s treatment. Beauchamp & Childress (2001) indicate that the four principles include respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. Respect for autonomy involves the physician respecting the ability of the patients to make their own decisions regarding their own health status. The physicians in this case take a paternalistic approach that allows the physicians take the best decisions that will favor the patients (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). In this scenario, I am the most appropriate person that can make the right decision based on Mr. Robinson since I have been his caregiver for the longest time. Mrs. Castle, therefore, has no right to coerce Mr. Robinson on taking another practitioner, especially after the consent given by the patient. As the ethics require, Mrs. Castle needs to understand the condition that Mr. Robinson is going through. In the event that Mr. Castle denies the patient the right to access my care, she will have broken the autonomy ethics and will be on verge of deceiving the patient towards having another practitioner. In fact, Mrs. Castle can be said to make attempts to manipulate Mr. Robinson especially with his inability to reason well. Simply put, respecting the autonomy of patients is crucial for osteopaths. The second principle is that of beneficence. This principle, as Beauchamp & Childress (2001) indicate, requires that healthcare professionals should always endeavor to promote the wellbeing of the patients. I am of the opinion that by treating Mr. Robinson I serve the best interests of the patient’s needs. Third is the principle of non-maleficence that forbids the healthcare professionals from causing any form of humiliation or suffering on the patients. In the case of Mr. Robinson, I believe that by treating him, I will reduce chances that the patient will be humiliated, as the patient confessed to me that he could not imagine living without my treatment services. The last principle is that of justice that relates to fairness, and offering what is required (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). Providing continual care to Mr. Robinson is the patient’s right and my responsibility as an ospethatist. Through value-based ethics as well, Fulford, Peile & Carroll (2012) explain that healthcare practitioners can make the right decisions even in intricate situations such as Mr. Robinson’s. Part 2 From the ethical considerations discussed above, I would take into account treating my patient despite the ethical issues that seemingly result from my decision. I believe that Mr. Robinson is not fine especially with the lost weight and teary eyes. Despite being an osteopath, I am also charged with offering general care for my patients. In this case, therefore, I do not believe that I am operating outside my area of expertise. The duties of professionals require that I make the right judgment in line with the situation at hand. I opt to treat the patient since my professional judgment allows me decide the treatment for the patient who, as per his condition, does not have the ability to make the right decisions regarding their present condition. Disrupting the treatment of Mr. Robinson means that I predispose the patient to more harm as he will have a new healthcare provider that may not understand well the historical records of my patient. Since I recognize and operate within the confines of training and competence of osteopaths as General Osteopathic Council (2012) requires, I hope to work with other professionals to care for my patient effectively such as Mrs. Castle though we may not share the same opinions. All these efforts will see to the proper treatment of Mr. Robinson and even possible recovery in the long run. References Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F., 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Darwall, S., 2002. Consequentialism. Oxford: Blackwell. Fulford, K., Peile, E. & Carroll, H., 2012. Essential Values-Based Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gelhaus, P., 2012. The desired moral attitude of the physician: (1) Empathy, Med Health Care and Philos, 15, 103–113 DOI10.1007/s11019-011-9366-4. General Osteopathic Council, 2012. Osteopathic Practice Standards. London: General Osteopathic Council. Stone, J., 2005. An Ethical Framework for Complementary and Alternative Therapists. London: Routledge.  Wolff, M., 2014. The Virtuous Physician. FT2 Professionalism & Ethics (DCO). London: British School of Osteopathy. Read More