In the medical environs, caregivers and families need to make various decisions concerning the health and care of patients. The approach of tackling these medical situations is often crucial which affirms the need for a bioethics mediator. Bioethics mediation is an integrated medical process involved in resolving dilemmas on the proper ethical procedures in health care institutions. It requires a bioethics mediator with skills in interpersonal communication, dispute resolution, listening and emotional intelligence who is responsible for assisting health practitioners, patients and families resolve their disagreements. In the case study, although an agreement was reached at the end, the bioethics mediator disrupted the ethical session and failed to address the case concerning Cindy Olsen and the disagreement between Dr. Walker and Dr. Prince with professional integrity.
The case indicates that the bioethics mediator did not professionally facilitate a resolution that was consensual between the two doctors. The mediator to begin with, did not practice the principle of autonomy expected in the medical mediation process. The two doctors were all rational agents involved in the decision making process concerning the patient. The mediator was not able to make the doctors decide on whether or not to approach the patient with the information that her child might be having a heart defect. According to the principle of autonomy, a patient like Cindy Olsen is given autonomy and is believed to have the capacity to act intelligently with understanding without preventing the administration of proper medical care and attention contrary to what Dr. Prince assumed would happen. The mediator instead asked a lot objective questions to Dr. Prince who was against the capacity of the patient to autonomy. Giving Dr. Prince more time to explain his perspective on the issue indicated the support of the mediator to Dr. Prince, and this allowed the doctor to intentionally fail to address the critical subjects that caused the dispute between the two (Nancy & Carol, 2011).
Furthermore, the mediator failed to practice the bioethics principle of beneficence, which expects the two doctors to be beneficiary to the patient, Cindy Olsen. The bioethics mediator should have facilitated communication that is self-reflective, flexible and participatory to initiate the doctors to take positive steps towards removing harm from the patient. The mediation process is meant to provide a solution to the disagreement by enabling an understanding between the different parties involved on the importance of consulting the patient, a procedure that ensures a patient is given first priority. It is important that the mediator should have identified the dispute and priorities of the parties, clarified the medical procedure and facts and then discussed the considerations and options with the doctors with an inclination to the significance of patient involvement in the decision making process. The mediator should have aimed to avoid the emotional tension between doctors and allow ethical integrity to be the backbone for reasoning and resolving the medical dilemma (Nancy & Carol, 2004).
Proper standards of medical care advocate for the timely integration of the principle of non-maleficence in any bioethics mediation. The doctors and in particular Dr. Prince was not supposed to neglect the importance of minimizing risks and harm to the patient. The mediator failed to emphasize on the need of medical competence of the doctors.The protection of Cindy Olsen should have guided the mediator in articulating the solution to the dilemma between the two doctors. It is expected for different patients to experience harm in the course of medical administration. Although Cindy would have been hurt by the truth of her medical condition, it would have assisted in the decision for the proper path of medical care to be taken without compromising the patient’s health (Autumn, 2007). However, the three were able to reach an agreement on the importance of clarifying medical results and addressing patients when the need arises.
References
Autumn, F. (2007).The Failure of the Consult Model: Why “Mediation” Should Replace “Consultation”.American Journal of Bioethics 7(2) 31-32.http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=bioethics_papers
Nancy, N. D & Carol, B. L. (2011). Bioethics Mediation – A Guide to Shaping Shared Solutions. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Nancy, N. D& Carol, B. L.(2004).Bioethics Mediation – A Guide to Shaping Shared Solutions.United Hospital Fund of New York, NY.http://www.uhfnyc.org/usr_doc/BioethicsMediationa.pdf
