The document discusses the implications of court decisions regarding doctors' obligations to disclose unapproved treatment options and the evolution of the Patients' Bill of Rights. It emphasizes the importance of informed consent, legal responsibilities of healthcare providers, and the role of patients in their own healthcare decisions. Additionally, it outlines the benefits of the Patients' Bill of Rights in enhancing patient-provider relationships and ensuring patient protection and satisfaction in healthcare services.

1. **Write a 100-word reply to the 4 individual questions
below.**
To help you with your discussion, please consider the following
questions:
What clarification do you need regarding the posting?
What differences or similarities do you see between your
posting and other classmates' postings?
What additional questions do you have after reading the
posting?
What item you found to be compelling and enlightening.
1.Katrina- In my opinion the court decision is warranted
because, doctors are not obligated to disclose to patients
“miracle treatments” or any drug or treatment not yet approved
by the FDA. Now there are cases where FDA approved drugs
have been used in specific treatments that isn’t approved for
that particular drug this is called “off label drugs”. The use of
non-FDA approve medicines increases the physician chance of
medical malpractice liability. These particular drugs and/or
treatment were illegal and not approved by the FDA in the
patient state of resident for a reason. Non-FDA approved
prescription drugs may present a significant threat to
individuals seeking care since these drugs most certainly has
not endured evaluation by the FDA for “safety, effectiveness or
quality” (FDA.gov). If the FDA did not evaluate drugs, there
wouldn’t be any means to determine if these medicines are

2. harmless and beneficial for use. The FDA also evaluates to
make certain that prescription drugs are formulated in a way
that the drug quality is consistent and if the drugs label is
absolute and accurate. FDA unapproved drugs have ensued in
injury to the patient. The FDA focus on protecting patients from
the injuries associated with non-approved drugs. These
standards are put in place to protect both the patient and the
physician.
The treating physician need not to be held accountable for not
advising patients of treatment options that are illegal or not
successfully proven because, technically these treatment options
are not available to the patient. The informed consent doctrine
requires the physician to inform the patient of the benefits,
inherent, material risks, and alternatives of a medical
intervention. “The doctrine of informed consent is the legal
basis for informed consent and is usually outlined in a state’s
medical practice acts” (Judson, K 2020). Informed consent
entails the patient’s right to receive all pertinent information in
relation to the condition and then to make a decision regarding
treatment based on that knowledge. (Judson, K 2020). The
informed consent doctrine does not include disclosure for
illegal treatments or illegal prescription drugs. “The physician's
obligation is to give medical facts accurately to the patient and
to make recommendations for management in accordance with
good medical practice” (AMA 2010). Disclosing illegal
treatment options or even illegal prescription drugs do not fall
under good medical practices and the physician should not be
held responsible for not disclosing this information to the
patients.
2. Tenneh
In my own opinion toward this case, the court’s judgment does
not really appear to be justified. That is because the doctor
informed the woman about the chemotherapy negative effects

3. and cautioned her that her IQ would be permanently damaged.
The woman on the other hand, elected to go forward with the
procedure. The patient’s claims are unjustifiable because the
medicine, as the woman recently discovered, it unlawful in her
state and is not even being approved by the FDA. It would have
been prohibited to inform the patient of this. The doctor’s only
responsibility is to inform the woman about all the available
therapies that have been demonstrated to work and have been
approved by the FDA. That’s because if a doctor advises a
patient about an unlawful therapy, the doctor will be held
accountable for deceiving the patient if the patient tries it and
something bad happens to them. As a result, the doctor is
prohibited from informing the patients about unapproved
therapy options. In the aforesaid case the court wasn’t really
warranted in issuing a summary judgment since the doctor had
the authority not to tell the patient about the alternative
treatment options that were not legal. Instead of giving a
summary judgment the doctor has right to be heard and have his
reasons considered. All patient and doctor have a constitutional
protection that should be protected; thus, the court should hear
both parties prior to making a decision.
3. Jessy Lee
Patient's Bill of Rights
The Patients’ Bill of Rights have evolved over the years,
especially after the enactment of the Accountable Care Act in
2010. With this enactment, patients became increasingly aware
of their rights in receiving proper care/information as well as
knowing their role in the process of healthcare delivery. These
“rights” allow for improved patient-provider communication
and overall relationship. It assists the patient to know what to
expect from their healthcare providers/insurance as well as what

4. is expected of the patient from the provider as well. I see this
as a mutual exchange of information and collaboration between
the two parties. Currently, there is no universal bill of rights,
although the original version of this was created by the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services shortly after the Accountable
Care Act
(M.U.S.E, Patient’s Bill of Rights
). I thought it was interesting to learn that according to
M.U.S.E, Rights in Ethical and Legal Disclosures
, “bills of patient rights have no legal impact; rather they set an
ethical tone for an HCO's relationship with those it serves.” It
is with this ethical manner, that patients have a right to
considerate and respectful care, acknowledging one’s “cultural,
psychosocial, and spiritual values” and following through with
those preferences.
The Joint Commission has a brochure called “Speak Up” which
has an extensive checklist of patient’s “rights” and “your role in
your healthcare.” Based on my research, they all have similar
themes and rights such as: being informed of one’s care and
consenting or refusing to such care/treatment, maintaining
confidentiality and keeping medical records private/secure,
receiving discrimination-free care, making decisions about End-
of-Life Care, accessing various patient support services if you
have an impairment in vision, speech, hearing, or mental
capacity (jointcommission.org). This also includes being
educated on available financial resources and knowing an
estimation of charges prior to treatment with an explanation of
said charges if requested. Finally, expressing complaints if the
above rights appear to have been violated. There certainly more
bill of rights we can include here but these are some of the main
ones.
On the other hand, the patient’s bill of rights also includes the
active role of the patient and his/her responsibilities. For
example, disclosing all medical and family history in order for

5. the provider to render a diagnosis/treatment, being honest and
courteous, ask questions if you need clarification, use
healthcare services appropriately as well as keeping/cancelling
appointments in a timely manner, and being attentive to
instructions that are provided by the physician/clinician. There
are more we can add to this list but this is a good basis of the
important role a patient has in their own health care delivery
process.
In summary, I believe these bills of rights are definitely
necessary in helping patients receive the best outcome for their
health care. Both the patients’ rights as well as what is expected
of them, helps with communication, trust, and cooperation in
the patient-provider relationship. It also allows the healthcare
organization to continue to build patient satisfaction with the
community they serve. The patient’s bill or rights is a win-win
for all involved in delivering healthcare and will minimize
possible complaints and lawsuits.
4. Katrina-
The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) is simply
documentation which informs patients about the details on how
they can anticipate being managed at their healthcare visits.
This documentation is not legally binding. This document
simply supplies patients with intent and expectancy for their
treatment. The “Patient’s Bills of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) not
long ago changed its name to the “Patient Care Partnership”
(Bedolla, M. 2016). The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE.
2021) was invented by the “American Hospital Association”
(Bedolla, M. 2016) in 1970’s and amended in 1990’s. A short
time ago the “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) got a
crucial revamping from “Obamacare” (Bedolla, M. 2016). The
“Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) provides protection to
patients by expressing what resources are required to be
presented and accessible to you and being provided honest and

6. trustworthy healthcare. The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE.
2021) also gives the patient options, this simply refers to the
fact that you have the freedom to ultimately have the final
decision about your healthcare.
The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) is necessary
because, it grants the patient added authority over their health
maintenance. It prohibits medical indemnity companies from
restricting medical care and coming betwixt doctor and patient.
A few “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) most
outstanding features are healthcare companies cannot deny
coverage to a patient with pre-existing conditions. Healthcare
companies cannot withdraw a patient’s healthcare coverage in
case of sickness. Healthcare companies cannot place a
limitation on a patient’s lifetime limits or their annual
healthcare coverage limits. Patients have the choice to select
any PCP or Pediatrician within network. Females have the
option to visit any obstetrician or gynecologist within the
network without the need of referrals. Pre-approvals are not
needed from the health insurance company to receive emergency
treatment at healthcare facilities not within network. Obamacare
place patients in control about their personal medical care.
Bounded by legislation the “Patient's Bill of Rights” (MUSE.
2021) hand patients’ strength as well as versatility which is
needed to produce advised decisions about their healthcare.
In regard to the universal “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE.
2021) if it did exist, in my opinion no provisions needs to be
added. Being universal and prohibits to everyone worldwide is
the only thing the patient’s bill of right is missing. Overall, the
“Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) is a great addition to
the healthcare industry. Something more added for the
protection of the patient and to provide better healthcare. To
assist patients in feeling more optimistic about the healthcare
structure and to ensure healthcare meets the patient’s

7. necessities. It also provides the patients an outlet to
communicate issues without hesitation.