People suffering from mental health conditions are often unwilling to reveal their status and this includes health professionals. They may wrestle with the pros and cons of revealing their health status to their employer in particular as they seek to reconcile personal privacy with professional duty. There is no simple, clear consensus as to whether they have a moral duty to share the information voluntarily or explicitly to share it with the employer. Additionally, there is a concern as to whether a degree of non-disclosure is justifiable to protect the privacy of health care professionals in some circumstances. Decisions surrounding the disclosure of a mental health problem are nuanced and may require that competing needs and values be reconciled. Although self-declared mental health status is an intrinsic moral good, the healthcare professional needs to feel confident and ready to come forward.
Can a lie be justified if it saves a human life or a community, or if another great evil is avoided? The article proposes that health professionals need not always tell the truth, depending on situation; but, this does not refute the significance of telling the truth. It also elucidates the value of telling the truth, and the challenges for telling the whole truth. Two prominent theories of ethics, Deontological and Consequentialism are deliberated, together with the integration of examples to illustrate main areas of interest.
We recognise that people lie to health professionals for several reasons. However, these incidents endanger the well-being of the professionals and bring us to the question of whether people have an exclusive moral duty to always profess the truth about their health and other facts, particularly in a pandemic crisis. This review argues that an honest patient is a key to undertaking their roles as health professionals and delivering the best services possible to meet the needs of the patient. Greater awareness and comprehension of the potential ramifications of dishonesty, not only helps establish the moral obligation, to tell the truth, particularly in a pandemic situation, but also translates into a better relationship with health professionals. It also enforces an ethical solidarity on every single of us to show tangible moral response to ensure that those most vulnerable to risks from the pandemic illness such as health professionals are protected as far as possible.
Gift giving is generally well-intentioned and graciously accepted to healthcare professionals but it is also one of the concerns that cause an ethical dilemma in health care. Is the gift giving ethically appropriate? Tangible guidance about how healthcare professionals would respond to gift giving is possibly scarce and non-specific. In cases where there is an absence of hospital policy specifying how to treat patients' gifts, healthcare professionals may need to reflect several factors when addressing the dilemmas. This factor includes a reflection on the implications of responding to the gifts.
The incidence of aggression within healthcare environments has exhibited a discernible rise. As a response, restrictive measures, including restraints, are enforced. Due to the safety and ethical concerns associated with using restraint, de-escalation measures are regarded as the most efficient course of action. The paper posits that it is critical to identify the causes of aggression before employing restraint through a multidisciplinary risk assessment. In addition, the reasonableness and proportionality of administering restraint must be carefully measured. The significance of cultivating a therapeutic and compassionate environment is emphasised. The paper will exclusively examine physical restraint as a form of restriction intervention.
Healthcare disagreements are common, but recognising the causes is essential to reaching a moral consensus. The article describes the challenges associated with resolving the disagreements. Therefore, a systematic and timely team-based discussion, ethics consultation with ethicists and the hospital ethics committee, active participation of all members' discussions, and scheduled debriefings are pragmatic ways to find balance when healthcare professionals disagree. Teams need these attempts to build consensus and make moral decisions. It also fosters harmony, prioritises patient and team interests and, most importantly, keeps the team intact.