Moral dilemmas are contradictions between two behavior choices in a particular life situation. An ambiguous choice of behavioral strategy is common and places demand on the qualities of the individual. One of the most striking episodes that created a moral dilemma was a situation when I had to take care of a close friend of mine who had been undergoing unsuccessful treatment for a long time. Because I maintained close contact with the doctor, and the latter did not talk much to the hospital client, I often learned of the results of the examinations before the patient did. The choice between reporting the lack of positive results or keeping silent was a moral dilemma for me. It is known that this question is resolved unambiguously for medical personnel since doctors are obliged to notify patients about all examination data. However, in the case of interpersonal relationships, a serious contradiction arises. For a person who is not a doctor, the choice to remain silent is the right one.
The news that prolonged treatment has not yielded a positive result seriously impacts the patient’s psyche. Final recovery can depend a lot on the individual’s attitude, positive thinking, and self-regulation skills. Every piece of information about the negative treatment results is a factor putting strong pressure on the patient’s mood and motivation, sometimes provoking depression. For this reason, I decided not to report the results of all examinations until there was no indication of a positive dynamic. Belief, sometimes unreasonable, in the fact that recovery will come sometimes enhances the effect of medications. Knowing this, I decided to shield my friend from negative thoughts to try to divert his thoughts.
A particularly significant argument for me was that the tests often give inaccurate results. To be conclusively sure of the correctness of the examination results, it is necessary to undergo the procedure several times. By telling the patient at once, relatives risk causing unwarranted patient stress since there is no certainty that the results are one hundred percent accurate. My friend’s experience was that the blood test results could have been confused and attributed to another patient. The risk of inaccuracy or physician error encouraged me not to report all results. Besides, it is essential to keep the specifics of the patient’s diagnosis (Fremgen, 2019). In my situation, a friend encountered a diagnosis that did not raise severe life-threatening concerns. Nevertheless, cases that involve the risk of a fatal outcome involve a thorough understanding of the patient’s condition and perspective.
Moreover, an important factor in this dilemma is the individual’s temperament and perception of the world around them. The choice of reticence is appropriate when the person is quite receptive. However, suppose the person has a stable character and shows the ability to react ecologically to stressful situations. In that case, a frank conversation about the condition and prospects for treatment is acceptable. It is also important to understand the organizational specifics of therapy (Fremgen, 2019). In situations where patients work with several doctors from different hospitals or departments, the latter must be aware of all the information to make the right decisions. To do this, the hospital client needs to have accurate data on their diagnosis, examinations, and course of treatment at their disposal.
Thus, the dilemma associated with providing an individual with information about their condition is a multifaceted issue. Withholding test results may be a good solution if healing can be assured and there is no need to create a stressful environment for the patient. Cases involving serious risk to life require utmost honesty with the patient. The character type should also be considered an important argument for making a decision.
Reference
Fremgen, B. (2019). Medical law and ethics (6th ed.). Pearson.