Ethical Issues In Healthcare Essay

It is a cold and snowy Friday night. The emergency department (ED) waiting room is full to overflowing. The seasoned ED nurse knows half the people waiting to be seen are not there for a true emergency health crisis. Some are drug seeking. Some are folks that do need care, but not emergent care. Yet, it remains a constant. These patients sitting impatiently are not “taking ahold” of their healthcare. Most are not the least bit able to initiate, educate, or make serious healthcare decisions for themselves. Perhaps society as a whole or a flawed healthcare system is to blame for this deficit, but regardless, the gap exists. To be discussed and challenged is the theory presented by Eric Dishman on Intel and their idea of a “personal healthcare system”.
Agreeable is the statement presented that the healthcare system is globally flawed. Physicians both primary and specialty alike too often work
co-dependently as opposed to an intertwined unit. With the birth of electronic healthcare records many communication barriers have already been amended. Medication lists are now organized and accessible. Diagnoses, diagnostic results, and consult notes are all easily accessible in one system, helping to gap the once jumbled information. Perfecting and building on the electronic healthcare record system is undeniably needed and should be done.
The idea presented by Dishman proposing “care customization” is intriguing.
Patients being active in selecting unique healthcare goals for themselves is ingenious. As pointed out, quality of life holds different meanings for everyone. Setting individualized self-selected goals with the whole healthcare team recognizing and molding care around these goals should be the new standard. Although quality measured goals play an important part, these standardized goals do not view the patient as a unique individual. Creating a healthcare system that is aimed at personally focused on the individual needs of the patient is one that should be implemented. Patient selected goals not only assures a realistic plan to implement, it also encourages patient compliance. After all, it is the patient’s own life and not the life of the healthcare team. Patients should make their own decisions. Although this leads to a slippery slope. When healthcare decisions lie solely in the hands of the patient, misconceptions and misguided health decisions can occur. As with all areas, finding a balance is
key.
Yet, the potential for a computerized system overtaking personal and empathetic care is disturbing. With the expansion of technology empathetic care is at risk for decay. Empathetic and personal patient care is the heartbeat of healthcare, specifically of nurses. Although the expansion of technology brings promises of new and innovative ways patients can oversee their own health, will all patients be able to guide their own healthcare? In a society that is so reliant on others, one must wonder if this new idea is as practical as it first appears. Fears of undiagnosed illnesses, worsening of conditions, and the inability to assure proper care is being given are just a few of the concerns associated with the presented new personal health system. Humans are not experimental beings that a computerized chip should be placed inside to monitor blood levels or obtain vital signs. The healing touch of a human hand, a smile, and a kind word are essential parts of healthcare that no computerized system can achieve.
The theory of healthcare at home is not a new concept. Physicians dating back to the late 1970’s used to routinely make house calls. Simple healthcare issues where treated at home. Only when the illness or disease became too serious or complicated was the patient admitted to the hospital. Yet, in the scream for “modern medicine” and better healthcare, large hospitals were built. Promising specialty doctors, diagnostics, and innovative treatments, local physicians no longer made house calls or treated patients primarily at home. Coming back full circle, is the idea that healthcare services should be primarily monitored at home. Grand is the idea of self-treatment at home, but assurance that proper care is initiated and continued, when in the hands of the patient alone, will be a complicated task.
In conclusion, the modern approach of Dishman’s personal healthcare theory comes with multiple glitches and issues. Although admirable and innovative, the risk of displacement of personal human touch associated with the proposed system, lack in the ability for patients to adequately make healthcare decisions, and the potential for inbred technology overtaking the healthcare system is some of the noted concerns. Although agreeable to the idea of a patient being active in selecting their own healthcare goals defined by personal identities in the meaning for quality of life, finding a satisfactory balance will be vital.