Ethics in Professionals Essay

. Salgo v Leland Sanford University Board of Trustees notes that if the health professional do not present all the necessary facts that will form the basis for the decision of the patient, the professional has committed a violation. The patient has to undergo an operation in the heart, in his aorta. Before the operation, he is well. After the operation, the patient experienced paralysis in his lower extremities and that the condition is permanent. There has been negligence in the part of the doctors and they fail to explain to the patient all the details of the procedure (Standford 1957). 2. Arato v. Avedon states that the physicians must present the accurate statistics regarding the life expectancy of patients regarding their case so they could plan for their death. Arato was suffering from an illness in his pancreas. He was told by the doctors to undergo F. A. M. chemotherapy. The doctors have failed to give the patient the chances of recovering after the chemotheraphy (LSU Law Center 1993). 3. The Schloendorff case has been part of the history of informed consent when the concept was made upon the decision of the judge that adults and those who are capable of thinking well can determine what can be done to his body and that any professionals who work on a patient’s body without the latter’s consent is guilty of assault and is liable of any charges. It says that as long as the patient is capable of right thinking, he can give his consent regarding the operation to his body. The victim has some problems in her stomach. When she was under anesthesia, the doctor performed removal of fibroid tumor. The patient only gave her consent to have ether examination. After the operation, the patient has to be amputated because of infection and gangrene (Szczygiel). 4. Canterbury v. Spence also states that all information regarding the result, the risks, benefits of the operation must be revealed to the patient. The patient was suffering from back pains. The doctors performed an operation which resulted in paralysis. The doctors failed to disclose the risks of the operation (Stanford, 1972). 5. The Patient Self-Determination Act provides a document of the rights of the patients to participate in making decisions for their own safety and make directives. It also says that violation of it makes the health professionals ethically liable. B. Timeline Schloendorff case (1914) ? Salgo v. Leland Sanford University Board of Trustees (1957) ? Canterbury v. Spemce (1972) ? Arato v. Avedon ? Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) (1991) C. Informed Consent Informed Consent involves the participation of the patient regarding the decision to whether a procedure will be done to the patient or not. The patient has the right to give consent. Informed consent means that the patient is informed regarding all the information that is necessary for the patient to have a basis in making his decision. Information includes the status of his illness, the life expectancy, the treatment that could be done and its risks and benefits, and all other possible treatments. The patients must also be informed to the possible consequences of not performing the treatment or even the consequences if the treatment is performed Works Cited: LSU Law Center. 1993. No duty to inform patient of non-medical information – ARATO v. AVEDON 858 P. 2d 598 (Cal 1993) available from < http://biotech. law. lsu. edu/cases/ consent/ARATO_v_AVEDON. htm > [15 February 2009] Stanford University. 1957. Salgo v. Leland Stanford etc. Bd. Trustees, 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 available from < http://www. stanford. edu/group/psylawseminar/Salgo. htm > [15 February 2009] –. 1972. Canterbury v. Spence. , 464 F. 2d 772 (D. C. Cir. 1972) available from < http://www. stanford. edu/group/psylawseminar/Canterbury. htm > [15 February 2009] Szczygiel, Tony. 1914. Mary E. Schloendorff, Appellant, v. The Society of the New York Hospital, Respondent available from < http://wings. buffalo. edu/faculty/research/ bioethics/schloen0. html > [15 February 2009]