Susan MacRae, RN
Research and Development Associate
The Picker Institute
Boston, Massachusetts
The case of Ms Robertson raises three important
questions in my mind. The first is whether the case
raises a clinical issue or an ethical issue. The second
is the question of --at what point do students have the
clinical skills necessary to independently advocate for
certain treatments on a patient's behalf? And thirdly
is the question of how to manage professional
disagreements.
As a general rule, it is essential that we ground our
clinical work in the best medical outcomes research that
is available. Our goal should be to estimate the
probability of occurrences for all outcomes that matter
to the patient, taking into consideration in as great a
detail as possible, both the patient preferences as well
as the patients' medical situation e.g., age, sex and
severity of illness. Only recently, are we starting to
recognize the importance of such data and information to
support better treatment decisions. If we have clear
medical evidence for a treatment decision and it
coincides with a patient's values, rarely do conflicts
seem to emerge. And if they do, it is often between the
professional preferences based on the medical evidence,
and the patient values. But that is not the case here.
Much more often, conflict seems to emerge in cases where
the science is unclear and for a number of reasons, the
patient is unable to contribute any preferences. This may
leave us in a situation very similar to the one we have
with Ms R, where two clinicians disagree about what is
"best" for her. How can decisions be made in
this case?
There are no clear rules about whose opinion should
take precedence in cases where there is no definitive
guidance from science or from the patient (which I take
to be the case here). But it is surely the case that this
becomes further complicated in cases involving students
and their supervisors. Students are not blank tablets.
There is literature that suggests that beginning nursing
students think critically and act ethically during their
first clinical nursing course. The same is surely true
across professions. But it is also the case that
beginning students are early on in their journey. When
each student has the skills necessary to independently
advocate for a certain treatment on a patient's
behalf is unique to the student.
But what if a student disagrees with their supervisor?
Students will disagree with their supervisors and their
peers throughout their careers. Hopefully some of that
will be minimized by relying more on outcomes data and
patient preferences but there will always be this
dilemma. I think in cases where a student has evidence
(either data or patient preferences information) to
suggest a different treatment plan, other than the one
that is being proposed, I believe that student has an
obligation to do his/her best to advocate for that
patient. Ideally this would be done by approaching the
supervisor directly with the evidence in hand. In other
cases, it may be necessary to invite another perspective,
from another clinician or an ethics committee for
example.
In many other cases however, what is "right"
is unknown. This may be because for example, there is a
fundamental difference of opinion about goals (e.g.,
length of life vs. quality of life), or a difference of
opinion about limits of professional responsibility
(e.g., should these clinicians be making recommendations
about Ms R's swallowing disorder?), or a difference
regarding a clinicians understanding of community's
health versus individuals health. In cases such as these,
it is often difficult to come up with one
"right" answer. In these circumstances, often
the best thing a student can do is seek support from
others who understand the complexity inherent in the
clinical environment, and seek opportunities to hear
other perspectives on complex issues. One approach I have
seen very useful in dealing with these issues is the use
of an informal student discussion group. If students from
a variety of perspectives and levels of experience can be
brought together in a non-threatening environment, the
students seem to learn to embrace these multiple
perspectives through a process of growth, as they
simultaneously learn to identify more clearly with their
own voice.
|
Ethics
Roundtable Home
Case Study
Responses
Annotated Bibliography
|