Having the name and/ or social security number is enough to even go further than just affecting patient safety; it can impact their everyday life outside of the medical field. If a person has the name, social security number, and the medical number basically gives that person full control over your Medicare, your health insurance, and even your medical records I would believe. This person can buy drugs that you need for any of your health issues, or even pick them up and then you wouldn’t get them.
They can seek medical care with your information and send the bills your way, for something you don’t even have or know of, and then their ailments would be on your record as well, which causes high risk factors since there isn’t actually anything wrong with you in that sense, but cause your records show otherwise, you are required for a certain treatment or medication that you really don’t need.
For example, you (the victim) have a prescription ready for you to maybe help you sleep and relieve pain, but when you go to get it, someone has already gotten it and you look like you’re doing something wrong, and even worse someone has your much needed prescription and now you are stuck with that pain and cannot get a wink of sleep. Another example is the person who has stolen your medical identity has went in for medical help using your name, social security number, ND Medicare number and it turns out they have thyroids.
Your record would now state that you have thyroids and you would receive all of the prescriptions that would be battling that ailment, but you do not actually have the ailment and now have drugs that could harm you and according to your medical records, you have to take them. To make matters worse, you receive the bill for this person who is using your good name, for their very expensive surgery to help with their thyroids. The patient’s safety would be severely impacted for the worst if their medical identity was stolen.
Question 2 -? use the internet to investigate and identify (2) medical ethical breaches, not data breaches, in health care over the past five years. Article 1: Please explain the 2 cases in detail including the name of the case, date of the case, and detailed summary Of the case. In one article, An Ethical Breakdown, by The Editorial Board on April 15, 201 3, from the NY Times website, the situation is a medical ethical breach involving a study on extremely premature babies. 3 academic institutions authorized a research project on premature babies, which included over 1 ,300 premature babies that were Ron between 24 and 27 weeks of growth or pregnancy. According to the article the project did not give an informed consent document that informed the parents of the risks or the benefits of the research on their premature babies. Basically, as explained in the article “The underdeveloped lungs in such babies are often unable to extract enough oxygen from the air to nourish the brain, so doctors often supply extra oxygen.
The danger is that too much oxygen can cause severe eye damage and blindness, whereas too little can lead to brain damage and death. ” (Board, 2013, p. 1) In order to roved the necessary care to the babies the blood is to be saturated with 85 to 95 percent oxygen. The researchers were trying to found a more precise or direct range so that there would be less damage to the eyes without the risk of death raising. The study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and the research project had 1 ,300 of the babies randomly divided into two groups.
One of the groups received a lower range of oxygen while the other group had the babies receive a higher range of oxygen. It Was stated that the consent forms did not reveal this production “in this case, the federal Office or Human Research Protections concluded that the consent forms failed to reveal that there was a greater risk of dying in the low-oxygen group and a greater risk of severe eye damage in the high oxygen group. The form also stated that, because both groups would receive oxygen within the standard of care, there would be no predictable increase in risk no matter which group a baby was in. (Board, 2013, p. 2) The federal agency found that the risks could have been much higher for the babies involved, because if a baby had clinically needed a higher level of oxygen and was separated into the group hat needed less oxygen, there could have been severe or dire consequences. What was the breach? The breach was: “23 academic institutions authorized a research project that failed to meet the most basic standard: providing an informed consent document to parents that accurately described the risks and benefits of the research to be conducted on extremely premature babies. (Board, 2013, p. 1) “The consent forms failed to reveal that there was a greater risk of dying in the low-oxygen group and a greater risk of severe eye damage in the high oxygen group. The form also stated that, because both groups would receive oxygen within the standard of care, there would be no predictable increase in risk no matter which group a baby was in. ” (Board, 2013, p. 1) What was unethical about it?
It is unethical because the parents of these over $1 ,300 extremely premature babies, were given consent forms and signed off knowing that the babies would be treated the same and there would be no unknown factors or risk factors involved. This was not the case; there were extra risk factors involved and the parents were not told that the babies would be divided into groups and given different treatments, they were led to believe that every treatment old be the standard procedure for every baby. How could it have been prevented?
If the researchers gave the parents the correct documentation that explained the full research project and all factors and risks involved, there could have been a lot prevented. The entire project could have been prevented, but it would be for safety reasons. At this time The Department of Health and Human Services agency is investigating how the breakdown of this research project occurred and if the institutions do not come up with strong amends for the situation, the agency can prevent them from conducting federally enhanced research on human subjects.
What is your opinion on the case and the decision? The feeling get from this case is a feeling of worry. These researchers seem like they were inconsiderate and playing with infant lives. They did not explain the research project to the full extent to the parents, because I am sure that the parents would have denied, so they completely modified the information to deliver to the parents so they would feel their baby is safe and there aren’t too much worries. They went on ahead with their research seemingly not even caring of these premature infants.
I believe they shouldn’t have even considered this project and they were even financed for it. There isn’t a final decision from what I have gathered from the article, but there should be consequences. There is the investigation by the federal agency, and hopefully they do suspend the research on human subjects by these dish-honest researchers. Article 2: Please explain the 2 cases in detail including the name of the case, date of the case, and detailed summary of the case.
The ethical breach was that the patient, pregnant (premature pregnancy) Shanty Burton, was being ordered, or forced, by court ruling to stay with Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and her doctor, both of which she was dissatisfied with. It was deemed unethical because the judge ordered Ms. Burton to stay with care that she did not want and patients do have the right to refuse care or request to be moved to another facility with another doctor. Also, other than being ordered to stay in the hospital against her will, it was for her something going on in her own body and within her womb.
How could it have been prevented? The only way it could have been prevented would be if the hospital and doctor just allowed her to do as she pleased. The judge could have ruled in her favor or there could have been other opinions as well. The case was a bit much, considering that the woman wanted to leave and argued against smoking, otherwise it would not have been mentioned here. Do understand that since she was denied being transferred to another hospital she took action against that, but it was under the doctors rule in a sense to protect the unborn infant.
After the ruling that she did indeed have to stay in the hospital and under doctors orders, the baby ended up being stillborn. This has to be a painful thing to go through and the issue is that we would not be sure if it was because Burton went against doctor orders and ended up in a court case and did not take the care during that time or cause she was not allowed to switch hospitals and doctors and the hospital and doctor she was with did not provide the quality of health care needed just as she had felt.
Works Cited Board, T. E. (201 3, April 15). The Opinion Pages. Retrieved from anytime. Com: http://www. anytime. Com/2013/04/16/0 pinion/an-ethical-breakdown-in- medical-research. HTML By Leticia Stein and Curtis Krueger, T. S. (201 0, January 26). Tampa Bay Times (News). Retrieved from Tampa. Com: http:// wampum’s. Com/news/health/pregnant-woman’s-involuntary- hospitalizing-raises-legal-ethical-medical/1 068455
Cite this Ethical Issues in HIM
Ethical Issues in HIM. (2018, Apr 24). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/ethical-issues-in-him/