PHIL 210 Module Two Discussion: Terminating a Patient & The Patient Care Partnership

Introduction to PHIL 210 Module Two Discussion 

The PHIL 210 Module Two Discussion: Terminating a Patient & The Patient Care Partnership aims to provide students with a structured approach to addressing ethical issues in healthcare. It specifically focuses on the complex scenarios of terminating a patient and understanding the Patient Care Partnership. These scenarios encourage critical thinking about the delicate balance between patient care, provider responsibilities, and overarching ethical principles. This Owlisdom How-To Guide will teach students how to analyze and respond to these challenging situations thoughtfully.

# 1: Terminating a Patient. Read the following articles: Prompts Considering the COVID pandemic, masks are a hot topic. What is your response to the person who says wearing masks is dangerous? Regarding the Costo article, do you agree or disagree that wearing a mask is about control? Do you think that students should wear masks while in class? Does your opinion change if you think about college-aged students vs. elementary school students? Is a patient not wearing a mask to their healthcare provider sufficient grounds for dismissal? Why or why not?

Terminating a Patient

To start the PHIL 210 Module Two Discussion: Terminating a Patient & The Patient Care Partnership, we will discuss scenario one by addressing the points below.

• Begin by thoroughly reading the provided articles to understand the different perspectives on mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Summarize the key points from each article, noting the arguments for and against mask-wearing.
• Develop a reasoned response to the claim that wearing masks is dangerous.
• Use scientific evidence and public health guidelines to support your position, addressing common misconceptions about mask safety.
• Reflect on the assertion that mask mandates are about control.
• Consider the ethical implications of public health mandates versus individual freedoms, and articulate your agreement or disagreement with the statement, providing well-reasoned arguments.
• Guideline: Evaluate whether students should wear masks in class, considering different age groups.
• Instruction: Discuss mask-wearing’s potential health benefits and psychological impacts for college-aged students versus elementary school students, supporting your opinion with relevant evidence.
• Analyze whether a patient not wearing a mask to their healthcare provider warrants dismissal.
• Consider the ethical and practical aspects of patient dismissal, including patient safety, provider responsibilities, and public health considerations. Provide a balanced argument for your stance.

Example

The articles present different perspectives on mask usage during COVID-19. One argues for masks’ public health benefits in reducing virus transmission, while another views mask mandates as a form of control, highlighting personal freedom concerns.

Response to Mask Safety Concerns

Addressing the claim that masks are dangerous requires scientific evidence. Studies show masks significantly reduce respiratory droplet spread, the primary transmission route for COVID-19 (CDC, 2020). Healthcare professionals debunk misconceptions, such as masks causing carbon dioxide retention or oxygen deficiency. Masks are safe for most individuals, including those with mild respiratory conditions, as they do not impede normal breathing (WHO, 2020).

Control Debate: Masks and Personal Freedom

The assertion that mask mandates are about control rather than health involves a complex ethical issue. While public health mandates can impinge on individual freedoms, they aim to protect the broader community. In healthcare, the primary goal is patient safety and reducing disease transmission. Therefore, while the notion of control has validity from a personal liberty standpoint, the ethical justification for mask mandates lies in their effectiveness in safeguarding public health. Balancing public health and individual freedom is delicate but necessary during pandemics.

Mask Policies in Educational Settings

Evaluating mask-wearing for students in class requires a nuanced approach. For college-aged students, masks help prevent outbreaks in densely populated environments where physical distancing is challenging. The health benefits are clear, as masks reduce the spread of the virus. However, the psychological impact, such as communication barriers and increased anxiety, must also be considered.

Younger elementary school students might struggle more with prolonged mask use due to discomfort and the need for constant reminders. Nevertheless, in both age groups, the health benefits of mask-wearing outweigh the challenges. Evidence suggests that school mask mandates significantly reduce transmission rates (AAP, 2021).

Patient Dismissal Over Mask Non-Compliance

Determining whether not wearing a mask is sufficient grounds for patient dismissal involves ethical and practical considerations. Ethically, healthcare providers must protect all patients and staff from potential harm. A patient refusing to wear a mask endangers others, particularly those with compromised immune systems. Practically, enforcing mask policies ensures a safe environment during a pandemic.

However, dismissal should be a last resort. Providers should first attempt to educate and persuade the patient about the importance of mask-wearing. If a patient consistently refuses and poses a significant risk, dismissal should be considered. This approach balances patient rights with the ethical duty to protect others’ health and safety.

Conclusion

The ethical implications of mask-wearing in healthcare and educational settings highlight the importance of balancing individual freedoms with public health responsibilities. Scientific evidence supports masks’ efficacy in reducing COVID-19 transmission, making mandates justifiable despite personal control concerns. Although practical challenges exist in educational environments, masks benefit all age groups. Patient dismissal over mask non-compliance should prioritize education and safety, emphasizing the complex interplay between ethics, public health, and personal freedom in healthcare decisions.

# 2: The Patient Care Partnership Prompts: Considering the Patient’s Bill of Rights and the Patient Care Partnership, what do you think was the original goal of creating such documents? Do you think that these documents alone have done as intended? With all the oversight within the healthcare industry, do we need more? Is it good practice to allow outside entities to establish doctrines that dictate patient treatment, or should it be left up to the individual providers? If left up to the individual provider, what issues could that cause?

The Patient Care Partnership

Next, in PHIL 210 Module Two Discussion: Terminating a Patient & The Patient Care Partnership. We will explore scenario two. To solve this, we will discuss the points below.

• Investigate the historical context and original objectives of these documents.
• Write a brief overview of the intended goals, focusing on patient empowerment, protection, and promoting high-quality care.
• Evaluate whether these documents have achieved their intended purposes.
• Discuss the successes and limitations of the Patient’s Bill of Rights and the Patient Care Partnership in improving patient care and rights protection.
• Consider the necessity and impact of external entities establishing healthcare doctrines.
• Argue for or against the involvement of external organizations in dictating patient treatment policies, weighing the benefits of standardized care against the need for provider autonomy.
• Reflect on the potential issues that could arise if individual providers set their treatment guidelines.
• Discuss the risks of variability in care quality, ethical inconsistencies, and potential patient harm. Provide suggestions for mitigating these risks if provider-specific doctrines were implemented.

Example

Historical Context and Original Objectives

The Patient’s Bill of Rights and the Patient Care Partnership were established to empower patients, protect their rights, and promote high-quality care. Historically, these documents emerged in response to growing concerns about patient mistreatment and the need for greater transparency and accountability in healthcare. The primary goals were to ensure that patients understood their rights, received respectful and ethical treatment, and had access to the necessary information to make informed decisions about their care.

Evaluation of Effectiveness

These documents have achieved significant success in raising awareness about patient rights and establishing standards for patient care. They have led to improvements in how patients are treated, ensuring they receive comprehensive information about their conditions and treatment options. The emphasis on patient empowerment and protection has fostered a more patient-centered approach in healthcare.

However, there are limitations. While the documents provide a framework for patient rights, their implementation varies across healthcare settings. There is still a need for consistent enforcement and monitoring to ensure that the principles outlined are upheld in practice. Additionally, some argue that these documents alone are insufficient to address all the complexities and challenges in patient care, necessitating further oversight and enhancements.

The Role of External Entities in Healthcare Doctrines

External entities, such as government agencies and professional organizations, are crucial in establishing healthcare doctrines. Standardized policies ensure consistent care and protect patients from unethical practices. These organizations can provide a comprehensive and balanced approach to patient care, integrating diverse perspectives and expertise.

However, there is a debate about whether it is beneficial for these external bodies to dictate patient treatment policies. Standardized care guidelines help maintain quality and safety across the healthcare system. On the other hand, excessive regulation can limit provider autonomy, stifling innovation and responsiveness to individual patient needs.

Potential Issues with Provider-Specific Guidelines

Allowing individual providers to set their treatment guidelines could lead to significant variability in care quality. This approach risks creating ethical inconsistencies, as different providers may have varying standards and interpretations of moral principles. Such variability can result in unequal treatment, potential patient harm, and confusion about patient rights and expectations.

To mitigate these risks, it is essential to establish a balance between standardized guidelines and provider autonomy. Providers should have the flexibility to tailor care to individual patients while adhering to core ethical standards and principles. Continuous education, moral training, and effective oversight mechanisms can help ensure that provider-specific doctrines do not compromise patient care quality and safety.

Conclusion

The Patient’s Bill of Rights and the Patient Care Partnership have significantly improved patient care and rights protection. While these documents have made strides in empowering patients and setting care standards, their implementation and enforcement need further enhancement. External entities play a vital role in ensuring standardized care, but a balance with provider autonomy is necessary to address individual patient needs effectively. We can achieve high-quality, ethical, and patient-centered healthcare by combining standardized guidelines with tailored care approaches.

Closing

The PHIL 210 Module Two Discussion: Terminating a Patient & The Patient Care Partnership challenges students to engage deeply with ethical issues in healthcare, encouraging them to consider various perspectives and the broader implications of their decisions. By critically analyzing these scenarios, students will develop a nuanced understanding of the balance between patient care, ethical principles, and provider responsibilities. The key takeaway is the importance of thoughtful reflection and evidence-based reasoning in navigating complex moral dilemmas in healthcare.

You can also read the next module two paper of guide PHIL 210 on Terminating a Patient & The Patient Care Partnership.