Moral lessons from the jury box.
A decade ago a North Carolina jury awarded millions of dollars in damages because of a healthcare institution's failure to provide appropriate pain relief to a dying patient. In 2001, a California jury found a physician guilty of elder abuse for his failure to properly manage the pain of a cancer patient. In both instances, state licensing boards had failed to take any disciplinary action against those involved. These cases dramatically illustrate a significant and persistent gulf between the lay public and the health professions with regard to the moral significance they attach to the duty to relieve suffering. Measures to insure that all patients receive effective assessment and management of their pain must take into account this disparity, and endeavor to achieve congruence by reconnecting the health professions to their ancient and core value--the relief of suffering.
Rich
Ben A
BA
Bioethics Program, University of California at Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. barich@ucdavis.edu
D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000150:complications / Q000556:secondary; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000701:Analgesics, Opioid / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D017809:Fatal Outcome; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000150:complications; D008297:Male; D010146:Pain / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000209:etiology; D010147:Pain Measurement; D005791:Patient Care; D010347:Patient Care Planning; D010820:Physicians / Q000592:standards*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000150:complications / Q000473:pathology; D013315:Stress, Psychological; D013727:Terminal Care
D000701:Analgesics, Opioid