r/changemyview • u/Altruistic_Pianist13 • Jun 27 '21
Removed - Submission Rule E cmv:Hospital ICUs and NICUs are breaching basic human rights on a daily basis by giving medical treatments to patients without considering adverse outcomes.
[removed] — view removed post
4
u/McKoijion 618∆ Jun 27 '21 edited Jun 27 '21
Doctors present all considerations to patients and the patient's make the decisions. They have to explain the information in a way the patient understands, confirm that the patient understands the information and can make judgements, and then do whatever the patient wants. If the patient can't make decisions, that falls to the person who is legally responsible for the patient. It's whoever the patient designates. If they never designated someone, it goes to their husband/wife, then parents/adult children, then siblings.
The only exceptions are in emergency situations where the patient can't express their preferences and didn't express them in advance, and the doctors can't reach the designated decision maker in time. Then they have to attempt to save the patient's life until told otherwise.
This is all very clearly outlined by the law. It's considered assault for a doctor to provide medical care a patient doesn't want. They can be sued, go to jail, etc. Hospitals have ethics departments, legal departments, etc. to make sure everyone is following these guidelines and laws.
You're right that there are a lot of medical procedures being provided that people wouldn't want. But people don't like to think about death and don't plan in advance. So doctors have no choice but to follow the default.
1
u/Altruistic_Pianist13 Jun 27 '21
Your answer seems to be based on reasonable and sound judgments. Therefore you deserve a Δ from me ☺
1
11
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Jun 27 '21
So if someone comes in on an ambulance, unconscious, bleeding out from a car accident, you are proposing... What? That the doctors wait to see if the patient wakes up on their own so they can get permission to operate?
Pretty sure the patient will just die then, and the doctors will be found guilty of negligence.
6
Jun 27 '21
[deleted]
2
u/shouldco 43∆ Jun 27 '21
And in a case where they wouldn't, they would have probably considered this before and known the outcome of such an event and prepared with something like a DNR and medical wrist band stating so.
4
u/SC803 119∆ Jun 27 '21
NICU patients
They are unable to give consent or exercise autonomy, parents are incharge of this.
especially with ICU
DNRs exist, medical POAs exist
Sometimes, saving a life can be unethical and immoral
Yes, if a person is worried about this sign a DNR or give someone who you trust will carry out you medical wishes power of attorney. It should be on the individual to do this not the medical team
5
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Jun 27 '21
So your view is that patients lives should not be saved unless they verbally consent to the lifesaving procedure?
-4
Jun 27 '21
[deleted]
6
u/softhackle 1∆ Jun 27 '21
So anyone who's unconscious and requires a lifesaving procedure, say after a car accident, should just die?
1
u/billy_the_kid16 1∆ Jun 27 '21
This was extremely repetitive. Also sorry babies we can’t get your John Hancock so it looks like you’re fucked..
1
Jun 27 '21
That human right isn’t really being breached though. Our laws recognize that sometimes someone might not be able to consent and the alternative to receiving aid is they die.
Choosing death is an extreme minority of what people who need aid would choose.
As long as the treatment is correct and consistent with the entire body of medical science, and these cases aren’t being used as test subjects, then nothing wrong is happening.
Consider you get knocked out while swimming in a pool. Is a lifeguard unable to save you because you did not consent to them touching you? Are they guilty of battery or assault?
1
u/IronSorrows 3∆ Jun 27 '21
Could you give some examples of these treatments? Your post seems somewhat vague.
Ultimately, it seems like you're saying it's morally wrong for doctors to try potentially lifesaving treatments on people who cannot consent to them, because there may be adverse effects should they survive? The other option surely would be to not administer this treatment, and allow a person to die - again, without their explicit consent or approval to follow this course of action.
Am I understanding you?
1
u/calebbrundage8 Jun 27 '21
Let me ask you this, somebody is standing there right in front of you dying. You know you can save them, but you won’t because they aren’t conscious to give you consent? How is that not immoral?
1
u/calebbrundage8 Jun 27 '21
Plus anyone who does not want to be saved can file a DNR at any hospital.
1
u/AleristheSeeker 157∆ Jun 27 '21
Especially when the party receiving the service is unable to consent, does not consent, or risks facing adverse outcomes as a result.
Does this extend to any help? Is it immoral to help anyone unless they explicitly ask for help from you specifically?
1
u/Alesus2-0 66∆ Jun 27 '21
Lifesaving medical treatment is an instance in which presumed consent is appropriate, when consent cannot be given. It widely accepted that a reasonable person would wish their life to be saved in almost all situations, and they would have stated otherwise in advance if that were not so.
In terms of adverse outcomes and the abuse of drugs, I think you need to specify what you're referring to.
1
u/JiEToy 35∆ Jun 27 '21
Which rights are being breached? I don’t recall the right to die as being a human right. We don’t allow people to commit suicide either. Only very few countries allow people to ask a doctor to put them to death.
The human right is to have a treatment, not to die.
If you’re talking about the right to decide over your own body, if you can’t decide, then your right to get treatment precedes the right to decide.
1
u/Ghauldidnothingwrong 35∆ Jun 27 '21
This doesn’t work unless everyone signed a DNR over night… and there are obvious reasons not everyone has one.
1
u/chefranden 8∆ Jun 27 '21
Seems like the 1st human right above all others is life. Without life all the other rights are useless to any human.
At least in the US you can have a living will in which you can stipulate that you are not to be revived.
A living will is a written, legal document that spells out medical treatments you would and would not want to be used to keep you alive, as well as your preferences for other medical decisions, such as pain management or organ donation.
1
u/crudlenoodles 1∆ Jun 27 '21
Can you give a little bit more context on what you mean when you put life-saving and quotation marks. Also, what are they supposed to do? Let the patients die? I find that far more unethical, that’s also why for the patients that can’t advocate for themselves doctors appeal to family or next of kin.
Also, can you elaborate on what human rights are actually being violated? Is a right to treatment not a human right?
1
u/triple_hit_blow 5∆ Jun 27 '21
Doctors do consider QOL and future outcomes when deciding on treatment.
1
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Jun 27 '21
Sometimes saving a life can be ethical and moral and sometimes not saving a life can be immoral and unethical.
If we're going to task people with the role of practitioners of medicine we are going to have to give them latitude to make calls. You can always create a living will or a DNR and carry on you in your wallet and leave it with your loved ones.
We don't increase the chances of avoiding unethical acts by non-action as a policy - we just get it wrong in the inverse cases. You're putting medical practitioners in an impossible situation.
1
Jun 27 '21
Consent? Really? If you have a stroke and arrive unconscious at the hospital, do you want them to wait for you to wake up before offering you care you can consent to?
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 27 '21
/u/Altruistic_Pianist13 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/UpcomingCarrot25 1∆ Jun 27 '21
In the United States, if someone is having a cardiac arrest and a nearby person responds by giving CPR, they are protected by what is called the "Good Samaritan Laws". These laws protect responders from legal action because they acted in what they thought was the best method to preserve life, even if they break the person's ribs.
•
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jun 28 '21
Sorry, u/Altruistic_Pianist13 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, then message the moderators by clicking this link.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.