Reference no: EM133270904

Case: In this case study The Merenstein Case of Informed Consent, they talk about Dr. Daniel Merenstein and is resident program. Informed Consent is defined, that a patient (or research subject) can freely agree to a procedure or treatment based on a correct understanding of what it involves, especially the risks. Dr. Merenstein gave a highly educated patient in his mid-fifties a physical examination. He discussed the importance of colon cancer screening, seat belts, sunscreen, etc. He also touched on the relevant risks and benefits regarding screening for PSA testing, but the patient declined. In this case, it illustrates tension between the two types of standards for informed consent which is physician-based standard and patient-based standard. Physician-based standards, in effect, require physician to assume the role of a "reasonably prudent practitioner" in informing a patient of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a treatment (pg98). As for patient-based standards, require that physicians assume the role of a "reasonable patient" and provide their patients with all information on the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a treatment that this hypothetical "reasonable patient" would attach significance to in making a treatment decision (pg98). If a physician respects a patient autonomy, it looks like he or she are failing to promote the good because he or she are making such a poor decision. If the physician were to better promote the good to carry on with the PSA screening, then he would have to violate this autonomy. For the court, I fell like the court goes with the Ethical standards of beneficence that is the ethical principle that addresses the physicians' ideas also actions that should always promote good. I do not agree with the decision that the judge made, because the PSA is not proven to be 100% effective it also provides a false-positive which in results is unnecessary for surgery or radiation treatment. I also don't agree with the patient suing, because you would think you would want to know all the risks or benefits to any screening or surgery the Dr did that but the patient still declined.

Question 1. Explain how this case illustrates the tension between the two types of standards for informed consent. (In other words, why might one standard suggest there was informed consent and the other not?)

Question 2. Which of the standards did the court go with, and do you agree with its decision?

Question 3. As a patient, would you want a physician to order a controversial but benign test for you without first discussing its risks, benefits, and alternatives with you?

Question 4. Who should bear responsibility when the risks accepted in a difficult situation come to fruition?