Confusion of Consent For Therapeutic Treatment In Incapacitated Patients
Participation in therapeutic treatment can help advance healthcare. However, it comes with its own challenges. For instance, it can place clinicians in conflicting situations regarding ethical standards, moral duties and what is deemed caring for their patients others’ may see it as potential harm by disrespecting ones’ autonomy. This becomes difficult in incapacitated patients who cannot give consent and places clinicians in a confronting situation. Some people may believe research on incapacitated patients may seem morally wrong whereas others may see it as a way to help improve the incapacitated patients' condition. The concern is, if the patient is incapacitated they cannot consent to therapeutic treatment which may potentially improve their condition. Therefore, the incapacitated patients’ condition can hinder them of a solution to their situation as well as helping future patients with the same issue. Therefore, their condition is denying them the ability to try new treatment in order to get better. Is it fair to at least try therapeutic treatment for the patient, or do nothing at all. If we do nothing the patient is in the same situation and nothing improves whereas if you try therapeutic treatment it may improve their quality of life and cure their condition. Case studies depicting this will be discussed. Given the situation if you were incapacitated what would you prefer?