Think of a programme that, over the internet, would let one surgeon perform surgery on a patient in another country. The last act has ended, so why should anybody still be there? How harmful do they hope it will be? What do you think they would stress about you if they wanted to discredit you? Can harm occur even if there is no hostile actor aiming to exploit these openings?

Think of a programme that, over the internet, would let one surgeon perform surgery on a patient in another country. The last act has ended, so why should anybody still be there? How harmful do they hope it will be? What do you think they would stress about you if they wanted to discredit you? Can harm occur even if there is no hostile actor aiming to exploit these openings?

Comprehensive Medical Assisting: Administrative and Clinical Competencies (MindTap Course List)

6th Edition

ISBN:9781305964792

Author:Wilburta Q. Lindh, Carol D. Tamparo, Barbara M. Dahl, Julie Morris, Cindy Correa

Publisher:Wilburta Q. Lindh, Carol D. Tamparo, Barbara M. Dahl, Julie Morris, Cindy Correa

Chapter10: Computers In The Medical Clinic

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 6CR

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Is it important to use social media for healthcare facilities reputation? Do you believe this true? Why or why not?
When it comes to healthcare, why should people even bother with using the internet? How does remote surgery differ from remote medical care?
What is "futile" care? A treatment that is believed to have little or no benefit. A treatment that normally would have cured a patient, but for some reason did not in this case. Any treatment a physician does not want to perform.
The point of the ethical principle to “do no harm” is an agreement to reassure the public that in all ways the health care team not only works to heal patients but agree to do this in the least painful and harmful way possible. Why do you think the principle of Non-Maleficence describes this agreement?
What are the Health Care Beliefs of the culture and do you believe there may be challenges with accepting traditional medical treatment? Please explain. If there is a language barrier, how would you communicate with the patient?
There has been, and continues to be, significant debate in the State of Indiana about the law of medical malpractice. Some view the law as too restrictive in the amount of compensation an injured patient can receive. Others view the law as a burden on medical providers that drives up the cost of medical care and hurts the retention of qualified medical providers in our communities. If Indiana were to do away with the cap on damages that a patient could receive for an injury caused by a medical malpractice, do you believe that would be a good change to the law or a negative change? Would the impact on medical providers outweigh the benefit to patients? Why or why not?
Have you had an experience with alternativemedicine? Or do you know someone who has? If so,how did the treatment (and the theory underlyingthe cause of the health problem) differ from standardmedical practice?
Does every citizen have "a right to die" at a time of their choosing especially if they are experiencing immense pain and suffering?Does the legalization of voluntary euthanasia create a slippery slope towards involuntary euthanasia (e.g., terminal patients may "choose" euthanasia because they are being pressured by family members or may feel guilty about being a burden on them)?Is it a moral imperative to preserve the "sanctity of life" at all costs?Is it immoral to impose one person's religious beliefs, that suicide is morally wrong, on another individual and deny that person, who is suffering, the choice to end their pain? Should euthanasia for the terminally ill be legalized? Why or why not?
Do people have the right to know their diagnosis and prognosis as well as anything else connected with their condition, their treatment and its consequences? What ethical principle supports this "right"? Explain how the principle supports the "right" as a "good" thing. If not, why not?
John Hardwig defends the position that a person could have a duty to die (at the least by no longer trying to continue living) in certain circumstances, although he notes that he does not think it should be enforceable. His view arises largely from his rejection of the ‘individualistic fallacy’ and an implicit understanding that resources are often limited. Does this stance open the door to claiming that medical professionals may have a duty to take into account more than the patient’s best interests? Why or why not?
under the non-maleficence principle of medical ethics is it legal to punish healthcare workers’ mistakes? Or, is it rather ethical. Why do you say so?
what are the disadvantages of personalised medicine and why aren't we using it in healthcare?