Ethics in Theory versus Ethics in Practice
Ethics is
always challenging but it is particularly intense and, at times, heartbreaking
in medicine. During medical school, when our ethics professor presented cases
for the discussion (e.g. whether or not a patient should undergo an experimental
treatment without assurance of life, therapeutic abortion, euthanasia and
assisted suicide), our class always had heated conversations. Understandably,
even if most of us were applying the same ethical principles, we each had
different approaches to the issues in medical ethics due to differences in
context. At least we were able to speak out and have lively discussions.
Although
the cases are similar in actual medical practice, the reactions and responses
are quite distinct. In discussions of concrete cases by the medical team, there
are long periods of silences, when each member tries to gather his/her thoughts
and come up with an acceptable response in the background of unease of holding
the key to life or death. Oftentimes, each of us ends the ethics discussion
with a disturbed face, a lined face and a heavy heart.
Medical Ethics: HIV/AIDS and disclosure
Among the
ethical situations in medical practice I have encountered, one of the things
that come to mind is the issue of HIV/AIDS and disclosure. One of the
core principles in medical ethics is the Principle of Autonomy. Under this
principle, a patient has the right to decide for himself/herself, including
whether or not to disclose his/her condition.
Our hospital had a patient who is
a lawyer, has a girlfriend and has HIV/AIDS. He was dying from PCP (Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia) but he
refused to disclose it to his family because of shame. He belonged to a family
of lawyers.
Prior to
getting intubated, he wrote a letter informing the medical team that any means
to hide his diagnosis should be done; otherwise, he would sue the medical team.
The medical team agreed to keep his diagnosis a secret. Each time his lawyer
brothers and parents asked about his diagnosis, the standard answer was severe
pneumonia. It came to a point when the patient’s family threatened the medical
team for malpractice, saying “What kind of doctors are you? Are you that
incompetent that you can’t even treat a simple pneumonia?”
The patient’s
stay in the hospital was relatively brief. Even to his last moment, the medical
team kept silent about his AIDS. The medical team continued to face the threat
of a lawsuit.
Fortunately,
prior to his death, the patient agreed to reveal his diagnosis once he dies. In
the end, when the medical team talked to the family, the family stated that
they had an inkling of his condition; they just wanted the doctors to admit to
it.
What about
the patient’s girlfriend then? Although some states require the patient’s
partner to become informed regarding the patient’s HIV/AIDS condition, other
states don’t. In this case, the law fully extends the right to disclose to the
patient. Should the medical team also inform the patient’s girlfriend, who is at
risk of the disease?
Further
questions to think about in this case are as follows:
If the
girlfriend was of no relation to the physicians, it is not the duty of the
physicians to inform the patient. What happens if the girlfriend consulted one
of the members of the medical team for pneumonia? Should the girlfriend be
informed that she is at risk for HIV/AIDS and should be tested?
At this
point, a review of the patient-physician relationship is merited. The physician
who treated the patient with HIV/AIDS now treats the girlfriend. When a former patient
dies, does the principle of autonomy no longer hold true? On the other hand, is
it not the duty of a physician to keep the current patient’s well-being at the
fore?