A physician assistant (PA) in a medical practice with several physicians contacts his professional association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA), to report that one of his employing physicians often recommends chiropractic treatment for patients with persistent back pain issues that have resisted medical solutions. The PA knows it is legal to refer a patient for chiropractic treatments, but he adamantly opposes the practice, considering it “bogus medicine.” The physician declines to discuss the matter.
The scenario presented involves a physician assistant (PA) who opposes his employing physician’s practice of recommending chiropractic treatment for patients with persistent back pain issues. The PA believes that chiropractic treatment is a form of “bogus medicine” and raises his concerns with his professional association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA). This raises several ethical and professional questions regarding the conflict between the PA’s personal views and the recommendations made by the physician.
One of the key considerations in this situation is the legality of referring patients for chiropractic treatment. While the PA acknowledges that it is legal to make such referrals, his opposition to chiropractic treatment stems from his personal belief that it is not effective. However, it is essential to differentiate personal beliefs from professional responsibilities. As a healthcare professional, the PA should prioritize evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care over personal opinions.
The ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence come into play here. The PA may feel that by referring patients for chiropractic treatment, he may be doing harm by endorsing what he perceives as “bogus medicine.” On the other hand, the physician believes that chiropractic treatment could potentially benefit the patients with persistent back pain who have not responded to traditional medical interventions. In this case, the physician likely sees the potential benefits of chiropractic care, while the PA only sees potential harm.
To resolve this conflict, it is crucial for the healthcare professionals involved to engage in open and respectful dialogue. However, the scenario states that the physician declined to discuss the matter. This refusal to address the concerns raised by the PA raises additional ethical concerns regarding professional collaboration and communication.
Effective communication between healthcare professionals is essential for providing optimal patient care. It allows for the exchange of ideas, perspectives, and evidence to ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment. In this case, the physician’s refusal to discuss the matter may impede the effective collaboration between the PA and the physician. This lack of collaboration undermines the shared decision-making process and potentially compromises patient care.
To address this situation, the AAPA can play a crucial role in facilitating communication and resolution. As a professional association, the AAPA can provide guidance and resources to address conflicts between healthcare professionals. They may encourage the PA and the physician to engage in open and respectful dialogue, allowing each party to voice their concerns and perspectives.
The AAPA can also provide resources and evidence-based information on chiropractic treatment to help the PA better understand its benefits and limitations. This information may help the PA expand his knowledge and challenge his preconceived notions about chiropractic care. Additionally, the AAPA may facilitate a formal discussion or meeting between the PA and the physician to address their differing perspectives and find a mutually agreeable solution.
It is crucial to acknowledge that healthcare professionals may hold differing opinions on certain treatment modalities. However, professionalism requires that patient care takes precedence over personal beliefs. The PA has a responsibility to provide evidence-based care to his patients and should consider the potential benefits of chiropractic treatment, especially for patients who have not responded to traditional medical interventions.
In conclusion, the scenario involving the PA and the physician raises important ethical and professional considerations. While the PA opposes the physician’s practice of recommending chiropractic treatment and considers it “bogus medicine,” it is essential to prioritize patient-centered care and evidence-based medicine. The AAPA can play a crucial role in facilitating communication and resolution between the PA and the physician, ensuring that patients receive the best possible care.