Select header/footer to go to
Table of Contents
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
1x Speed
2x Speed
49. Social Media Boundaries
Select Button
Be kind. Every person is fighting a difficult battle.
~ Plato
Privacy Peril
The Dangers of Social Media for Medical Professionals
Dr. Sarah Johnson, a renowned surgeon at the prestigious St. John’s Hospital, was found dead in her office late one evening. The entire hospital was in shock, and the authorities immediately launched an investigation to uncover the cause of her death.
Detective John Brown, the lead investigator on the case, began questioning Dr. Johnson’s colleagues and staff at the hospital. It was quickly discovered that Dr. Johnson had been an active user of social media, and had even created a blog where she would write about her experiences as a surgeon and share medical advice.
As the investigation progressed, it was revealed that Dr. Johnson had violated several social media boundaries in her blog posts. She had discussed patients’ medical conditions and even shared photographs of them without their consent. Her actions had breached HIPAA privacy laws and the hospital’s social media policies.
Detective Brown found evidence that suggested that one of Dr. Johnson’s patients had discovered her blog and was furious about the breach of privacy. The patient had been seeking legal action against her, and it seemed as though Dr. Johnson had been under a lot of stress in the weeks leading up to her death.
Further investigation led Detective Brown to discover that Dr. Johnson had been blackmailed by someone who had discovered her blog and threatened to expose her if she did not share confidential patient information with them. Dr. Johnson had refused to give in to their demands, but the blackmailer had not relented.
As the evidence began to pile up, it became clear that Dr. Johnson’s death was a result of the intense pressure she had been under due to the violation of social media boundaries. Her tragic death served as a cautionary tale for medical students and practitioners about the importance of maintaining professional boundaries on social media and the consequences of violating HIPAA privacy laws.
The hospital administration implemented stricter social media policies and emphasized the importance of maintaining patients’ privacy and confidentiality. Medical students and practitioners were reminded that social media could be a powerful tool for communication, but it must be used with care and professionalism to avoid blurring personal and professional boundaries. As Plato had said, “Be kind. Every person is fighting a difficult battle.”
Abstract
The integration of social media into the medical profession has occurred, along with its associated challenges. The use of social media by the medical community has increased dramatically in recent years, but it must be used with care to avoid blurring professional and personal boundaries. Medical students and practitioners must be aware of institutional social media policies, as well as HIPAA privacy laws, and the consequences of violating them. Patients’ autonomy, medical practitioner’s obligation to “do good” and “do no harm,” and public policy principles of justice must be taken into consideration when using social media. Social media can result in positive and negative consequences, and clear boundaries must be established to maximize the best interests of the patient and to maintain professional and legal standards.
**
Think
[49:1] According to the Pew Research Center, only 5% of the American population used social media in 2005; by 2011, that had risen to 50%. Now, over 72% of the population use social media. Young adults were the first to adopt social media, but usage by older adults has increased dramatically.
[49:2] Current social media use:
[49:3] Social media networks, blogs, and video sites are an integral part of our society and will only expand their influence. Medical students and practitioners can now have an online professional presence, communicating and disseminating health information instantly with millions of people. However, care must be taken not to blur one’s social online presence with one’s professional online presence. This is particularly difficult for medical students who already have an online social presence who are transitioning into a medical profession with significant professional, legal, and moral boundaries.
[49:4] One medical professional boundary is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal law enacted by Congress and signed into law in 1996, protecting patient information from unauthorized disclosures with punishable fines of up to $250,000 and a jail term of up to 5 years.
[49:5] A patient’s right to confidentiality and privacy is so vital that the HIPAA Privacy Rule prohibits accessing a patient’s records without prior authorization for any reason other than treatment, payment, and healthcare operations. This was exemplified in the high-profile Jussie Smollett Case where at least 50 employees, including nurses, at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, were fired after being accused of improperly reviewing the actor’s medical records.
[49:6] Before a medical student or practitioner uses social media, they must determine precisely what their institution’s social media policies are, as HIPAA is the minimum professional boundary set by federal law. Because of risk management issues, accreditation, and professional reputation, institutions usually put much stricter professional boundary standards in place than those enumerated in HIPAA.
[49:7] If the student or medical practitioner wears the white coat for social media, then they become a spokesperson for all the institutions that the speaker is associated with, and institutions are very wary and strict about any actual or perceived risk of misperception. Without institutional authorization, the student or practitioner should never wear the white coat or associate themselves with an institution when on social media. Personal and professional boundaries must be clearly and distinctly defined.
[49:8] No patient identities, diagnosis, or treatment options should ever be discussed on social media, as that would be a HIPAA violation, and the medical student or practitioner could be held professionally, legally, and institutionally liable. When a medical student uses social media, they must be aware of their medical school’s social media policies and any other institutional policies they may be associated with while doing clerkships and sub-internships. Students and practitioners must set clear boundaries between their social and professional lives as failure to do so could have permanent career and legal consequences.
Assess
Patient: 1) Autonomy
[49:9] A medical practitioner might think that getting the patient’s written informed consent before sharing a patient’s information on social media would be a sufficient condition for doing so, but that is not correct. Although getting written informed consent from the patient would be a necessary condition, that may not be a sufficient condition for sharing on social media. If a practitioner’s action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards, then that would be a sufficient condition for the practitioner to face possible professional, institutional, and legal disciplinary actions.
Practitioner: 2) Beneficence & 3) Nonmaleficence
[49:10] The medical profession’s prime directive is the maximization of the patient’s best interests in accordance with the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. However, for the patient to share such personal information, the recognized prerequisite is for there to be a patient-practitioner relationship. This relationship will only be actualized if the patient and society trust that the medical profession will keep their protected health information (PHI) confidential and private. Any exceptions to confidentiality and privacy must be clearly stated and understood by the patient. Examples of confidentiality and privacy exceptions would be when the medical professional is compelled by mandatory reporting laws for contagious infections, child and elder abuse, and gunshot wounds. Confidential and privacy boundaries must not be breached for social media purposes, as doing so would be a professional violation of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm).
Public Policy: 4) Justice
[49:11] Social media has expanded the influence of an individual’s words and thoughts. This can result in increased opportunities for both good and harmful social consequences. If harmful consequences violate individual civil rights and liberties, such as medical confidentiality and privacy, then the government has the authority to intervene to protect its citizen’s rights based on the public policy principle of justice (be fair). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is one such federal protective law. Since social media can communicate and disseminate information to millions of people instantaneously, the magnitude and potential for a wide spectrum of influences and consequences are greater than at any other time in history.
[49:12] Clear and distinct social media boundaries between one’s social and professional life must be understood, accepted, and implemented, and doing so will socially maximize the patient’s best interests.
Conclude
[49:13] Social media has become a communication platform associated with many potential healthcare violations ranging from the patient’s moral and legal right to privacy, medical professionalism, and institutional healthcare policies. Failure to set clear and distinct social media boundaries between one’s social and professional activities can result in legal, professional, and moral consequences. It is important to always be cognizant regarding of patient, professional, legal, and ethical social media boundaries, and always to err on the side of caution. Being regularly informed about one’s institutional social media policies is always part of medical standards of care. Professional and institutional obligations of the medical provider usually outweigh and supersede any personal freedoms if and when they come into conflict.
[49:14] In summary, the integration of social media into the medical profession demands clear and distinct boundaries to avoid potential healthcare violations and to uphold patients’ rights to privacy and confidentiality. Medical students and practitioners must be aware of institutional social media policies and ensure that their online presence does not blur the line between their personal and professional lives. By prioritizing professional and institutional obligations and adhering to ethical social media boundaries, medical professionals can leverage the advantages of social media while minimizing potential legal, professional, and moral consequences.
**
Social Media: U.S. Adults
18-29
30-49
50-64
65+
84%
81%
73%
45%
Age
White
Black
Hispanic
69%
77%
80%
Phenotype
66%
78%
Male
Female
Gender
69%
76%
65%
78%
< 30K
30K-50K
50K-75K
> 75K
Income
64%
76%
77%
High School
Some College
College
Education
76%
71%
66%
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Community
49. Review Questions
1. If a medical student uses social media, then they must be aware of their medical school’s social media policies and any other institutional policies they may be associated with while doing clerkships and sub-internships as HIPAA is the minimum professional boundary set by federal law.
2. If the student or practitioner wears the white coat for social media, then they become a spokesperson for all the institutions that the speaker is associated with, and institutions are very wary.
3. It is permissible for the student or practitioner to wear the white coat while on social media.
4. Students and practitioners must set clear boundaries between their social and professional lives as failure to do so could have career-changing and legal consequences.
5. If a practitioner’s action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards, then that would be a sufficient condition for the practitioner to face professional, institutional, and legal disciplinary actions.
6. A patient who authorizes a practitioner to commit a crime or moral indiscretion will absolve the practitioner from that crime or moral indiscretion as it relates to the patient.
7. Confidential and privacy boundaries must not be breached for social media purposes, as doing so would be a professional violation of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm).
8. Clear and distinct social media boundaries between one’s social and professional life must be understood, accepted, and implemented, and doing so will socially maximize the patient’s best interests.
**
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:6] Before a medical student or practitioner uses social media, they must determine precisely what their institution’s social media policies are, as HIPAA is the minimum professional boundary set by federal law. Because of risk management issues, accreditation, and professional reputation, institutions usually put much stricter professional boundary standards in place.
…
[49:8] No patient identities, diagnosis, or treatment options should ever be discussed on social media, as that would be a HIPAA violation, and the medical student or practitioner could be held professionally, legally, and institutionally liable. If a medical student uses social media, then they must be aware of their medical school’s social media policies and any other institutional policies they may be associated with while doing clerkships and sub-internships. Students and practitioners must set clear boundaries between their social and professional lives as failure to do so could have career-changing and legal consequences.
Wrong 😕
[49:6] Before a medical student or practitioner uses social media, they must determine precisely what their institution’s social media policies are, as HIPAA is the minimum professional boundary set by federal law. Because of risk management issues, accreditation, and professional reputation, institutions usually put much stricter professional boundary standards in place.
…
[49:8] No patient identities, diagnosis, or treatment options should ever be discussed on social media, as that would be a HIPAA violation, and the medical student or practitioner could be held professionally, legally, and institutionally liable. If a medical student uses social media, then they must be aware of their medical school’s social media policies and any other institutional policies they may be associated with while doing clerkships and sub-internships. Students and practitioners must set clear boundaries between their social and professional lives as failure to do so could have career-changing and legal consequences.
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:7] If the student or practitioner wears the white coat for social media, then they become a spokesperson for all the institutions that the speaker is associated with, and institutions are very wary and strict about any actual or perceived risk of misperception. Without institutional authorization, the student or practitioner should never wear the white coat or associate themselves with an institution when on social media. Personal and professional boundaries must be clearly and distinctly defined.
Wrong 😕
[49:7] If the student or practitioner wears the white coat for social media, then they become a spokesperson for all the institutions that the speaker is associated with, and institutions are very wary and strict about any actual or perceived risk of misperception. Without institutional authorization, the student or practitioner should never wear the white coat or associate themselves with an institution when on social media. Personal and professional boundaries must be clearly and distinctly defined.
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:7] If the student or practitioner wears the white coat for social media, then they become a spokesperson for all the institutions that the speaker is associated with, and institutions are very wary and strict about any actual or perceived risk of misperception. Without institutional authorization, the student or practitioner should never wear the white coat or associate themselves with an institution when on social media. Personal and professional boundaries must be clearly and distinctly defined.
Wrong 😕
[49:7] If the student or practitioner wears the white coat for social media, then they become a spokesperson for all the institutions that the speaker is associated with, and institutions are very wary and strict about any actual or perceived risk of misperception. Without institutional authorization, the student or practitioner should never wear the white coat or associate themselves with an institution when on social media. Personal and professional boundaries must be clearly and distinctly defined.
Wrong 😕
[49:8] No patient identities, diagnosis, or treatment options should ever be discussed on social media, as that would be a HIPAA violation, and the medical student or practitioner could be held professionally, legally, and institutionally liable. If a medical student uses social media, then they must be aware of their medical school’s social media policies and any other institutional policies they may be associated with while doing clerkships and sub-internships. Students and practitioners must set clear boundaries between their social and professional lives as failure to do so could have career-changing and legal consequences.
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:8] No patient identities, diagnosis, or treatment options should ever be discussed on social media, as that would be a HIPAA violation, and the medical student or practitioner could be held professionally, legally, and institutionally liable. If a medical student uses social media, then they must be aware of their medical school’s social media policies and any other institutional policies they may be associated with while doing clerkships and sub-internships. Students and practitioners must set clear boundaries between their social and professional lives as failure to do so could have career-changing and legal consequences.
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:9] A practitioner might think that getting the patient’s written informed consent before sharing a patient’s information on social media would be a sufficient condition for doing so, but that is not correct. Although getting written informed consent from the patient would be a necessary condition, that may not be a sufficient condition for sharing on social media. If a practitioner’s action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards, then that would be a sufficient condition for the practitioner to face professional, institutional, and legal disciplinary actions. A patient who has authorized a practitioner to commit a crime or moral indiscretion does not absolve the practitioner from the crime or moral indiscretion.
Wrong 😕
[49:9] A practitioner might think that getting the patient’s written informed consent before sharing a patient’s information on social media would be a sufficient condition for doing so, but that is not correct. Although getting written informed consent from the patient would be a necessary condition, that may not be a sufficient condition for sharing on social media. If a practitioner’s action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards, then that would be a sufficient condition for the practitioner to face professional, institutional, and legal disciplinary actions. A patient who has authorized a practitioner to commit a crime or moral indiscretion does not absolve the practitioner from the crime or moral indiscretion.
Wrong 😕
[49:9] A practitioner might think that getting the patient’s written informed consent before sharing a patient’s information on social media would be a sufficient condition for doing so, but that is not correct. Although getting written informed consent from the patient would be a necessary condition, that may not be a sufficient condition for sharing on social media. If a practitioner’s action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards, then that would be a sufficient condition for the practitioner to face professional, institutional, and legal disciplinary actions. A patient who has authorized a practitioner to commit a crime or moral indiscretion does not absolve the practitioner from the crime or moral indiscretion.
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:9] A practitioner might think that getting the patient’s written informed consent before sharing a patient’s information on social media would be a sufficient condition for doing so, but that is not correct. Although getting written informed consent from the patient would be a necessary condition, that may not be a sufficient condition for sharing on social media. If a practitioner’s action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards, then that would be a sufficient condition for the practitioner to face professional, institutional, and legal disciplinary actions. A patient who has authorized a practitioner to commit a crime or moral indiscretion does not absolve the practitioner from the crime or moral indiscretion.
Wrong 😕
[49:10] The medical profession’s prime directive is the maximization of the patient’s best interests in accordance with the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. However, for the patient to share such personal information, the recognized prerequisite is for there to be a patient-practitioner relationship. This relationship will only become actualized if the patient and society trust that the medical profession will keep their protected health information (PHI) confidential and private. Any exceptions to confidentiality and privacy must be clearly stated and understood by the patient. Examples of confidentiality and privacy exceptions would be when the medical professional is compelled by mandatory reporting laws for contagious diseases, child and elder abuse, and gunshot wounds. Confidential and privacy boundaries must not be breached for social media purposes, as doing so would be a professional violation of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm).
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:10] The medical profession’s prime directive is the maximization of the patient’s best interests in accordance with the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. However, for the patient to share such personal information, the recognized prerequisite is for there to be a patient-practitioner relationship. This relationship will only become actualized if the patient and society trust that the medical profession will keep their protected health information (PHI) confidential and private. Any exceptions to confidentiality and privacy must be clearly stated and understood by the patient. Examples of confidentiality and privacy exceptions would be when the medical professional is compelled by mandatory reporting laws for contagious diseases, child and elder abuse, and gunshot wounds. Confidential and privacy boundaries must not be breached for social media purposes, as doing so would be a professional violation of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm).
CORRECT! 🙂
[49:12] Clear and distinct social media boundaries between one’s social and professional life must be understood, accepted, and implemented, and doing so will socially maximize the patient’s best interests.
Wrong 😕
[49:12] Clear and distinct social media boundaries between one’s social and professional life must be understood, accepted, and implemented, and doing so will socially maximize the patient’s best interests.
49. Clinical Vignettes
1. Mr. Peter Anderson is a 27-year-old medical student. He has been using social media for many years and has a substantial online presence with a significant number of followers. Recently, he posted a picture of himself in his white coat on social media with a caption stating that he had just successfully completed his first intubation. He also included details about the patient's diagnosis and treatment options. He received a significant amount of backlash from his followers and colleagues, citing that he had violated patient confidentiality and crossed professional boundaries. What ethical issue is involved in this case?
2. Ms. Sarah Jackson is a 35-year-old practicing practitioner who recently joined a social media group for doctors. The group allowed physicians to discuss patient cases, share medical knowledge, and provide feedback to each other. One day, Sarah posted about a complicated patient case she was working on and included a picture of the patient's X-ray. The patient's name and identifying information were not disclosed, but Sarah's post violated the patient's privacy, and it was eventually discovered by a family member of the patient. The family member reported the post to Sarah's hospital, and Sarah was investigated for her actions. What ethical issue is involved in this case?
3. Mr. John Lee is a 45-year-old pediatrician who is an active social media user. Recently, he started a new Instagram account where he shares funny medical memes and pictures of himself wearing medical scrubs. Although he doesn't use his full name or identify his workplace, some of his followers are parents of his patients, and some of them recognized him. One day, a parent posted a picture of their child in the hospital and tagged John's Instagram account. John liked and shared the post with a caption that read "My little patient is doing well after surgery!" The hospital's social media policy strictly prohibits any mention of a patient or their medical condition on social media, and John's actions were reported to the hospital's administration. What ethical issue is involved in this case?
4. Ms. Maria Sanchez is a 50-year-old general practitioner who runs a free medical clinic in a low-income community. She recently started a social media campaign to raise awareness of the healthcare issues faced by the residents of the community. Her posts included pictures of patients and their families, as well as stories about their struggles to access healthcare. Some of the residents were happy that their stories were being shared, while others felt that it violated their privacy and dignity. A local news channel picked up on the story and aired it, which led to a heated debate about the ethics of sharing personal medical information on social media. What ethical issue is involved in this case?
5. Ms. Karen Johnson is a 60-year-old nurse who works at a hospital in a rural area. She recently started a social media campaign to raise awareness about the importance of organ donation. Her posts included stories of patients whose lives were saved by organ donation, as well as statistics on the shortage of organs in the country. She also encouraged her followers to sign up to be organ donors. One day, she received a message from a patient's family member who saw her post and decided to donate their loved one's organs. The family member expressed gratitude for Karen's post and thanked her for bringing awareness to the issue. What ethical issue is involved in this case?
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence is the duty to do no harm and is a fundamental principle of medical ethics [49:10]. In this case, Mr. Anderson violated patient confidentiality and breached professional boundaries by sharing details of the patient's diagnosis and treatment options on social media [49:5]. This action could harm the patient's reputation and lead to potential legal consequences for Mr. Anderson [49:6]. While it may seem like obtaining the patient's written informed consent would be sufficient, that is not the case if the action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards [49:9]. Posting personal and confidential information on social media could also damage the patient-practitioner relationship, thereby undermining the patient's trust in the medical profession [49:10]. It is essential for medical practitioners and students to set clear social media boundaries to protect patient privacy and maintain professional standards [49:13].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence is the duty to do no harm and is a fundamental principle of medical ethics [49:10]. In this case, Mr. Anderson violated patient confidentiality and breached professional boundaries by sharing details of the patient's diagnosis and treatment options on social media [49:5]. This action could harm the patient's reputation and lead to potential legal consequences for Mr. Anderson [49:6]. While it may seem like obtaining the patient's written informed consent would be sufficient, that is not the case if the action violates professional, institutional, or public policy disclosure standards [49:9]. Posting personal and confidential information on social media could also damage the patient-practitioner relationship, thereby undermining the patient's trust in the medical profession [49:10]. It is essential for medical practitioners and students to set clear social media boundaries to protect patient privacy and maintain professional standards [49:13].
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is confidentiality. Confidentiality is the obligation to protect the privacy of patient information [49:5]. Even if the patient's name and identifying information are not disclosed, sharing a patient's X-ray or any other information about their medical condition without their explicit consent is a violation of confidentiality [49:6]. Sarah's post violated her patient's privacy, which resulted in an investigation by her hospital and could lead to legal and professional consequences for her. Physicians have an ethical and legal obligation to protect their patient's privacy and should never share identifiable patient information on social media or any other platform [49:8]. This case highlights the need for clear social media policies in healthcare institutions and for physicians to understand the importance of maintaining confidentiality to ensure patient trust and safety.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is confidentiality. Confidentiality is the obligation to protect the privacy of patient information [49:5]. Even if the patient's name and identifying information are not disclosed, sharing a patient's X-ray or any other information about their medical condition without their explicit consent is a violation of confidentiality [49:6]. Sarah's post violated her patient's privacy, which resulted in an investigation by her hospital and could lead to legal and professional consequences for her. Physicians have an ethical and legal obligation to protect their patient's privacy and should never share identifiable patient information on social media or any other platform [49:8]. This case highlights the need for clear social media policies in healthcare institutions and for physicians to understand the importance of maintaining confidentiality to ensure patient trust and safety.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is confidentiality. Confidentiality is the obligation to protect the privacy of patient information [49:5]. In this case, John violated the hospital's social media policy by mentioning a patient and their medical condition on social media, even though he didn't disclose the patient's name or identity [49:6]. Sharing any information about a patient's medical condition on social media could lead to a breach of confidentiality and jeopardize the patient's privacy [49:13]. Medical practitioners have an ethical and legal obligation to protect their patient's privacy, and they should never share any identifiable patient information on social media or any other platform, even if they do not reveal the patient's identity. John's actions could have legal and professional consequences and undermine patient trust in the medical profession. This case emphasizes the need for clear social media policies in healthcare institutions, and medical practitioners should always be aware of their obligations to maintain confidentiality to protect their patients' privacy.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is confidentiality. Confidentiality is the obligation to protect the privacy of patient information [49:5]. In this case, John violated the hospital's social media policy by mentioning a patient and their medical condition on social media, even though he didn't disclose the patient's name or identity [49:6]. Sharing any information about a patient's medical condition on social media could lead to a breach of confidentiality and jeopardize the patient's privacy [49:13]. Medical practitioners have an ethical and legal obligation to protect their patient's privacy, and they should never share any identifiable patient information on social media or any other platform, even if they do not reveal the patient's identity. John's actions could have legal and professional consequences and undermine patient trust in the medical profession. This case emphasizes the need for clear social media policies in healthcare institutions, and medical practitioners should always be aware of their obligations to maintain confidentiality to protect their patients' privacy.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is justice. Justice is the obligation to treat people fairly and equitably and to ensure that everyone has access to the same opportunities [49:11]. In this case, Maria's social media campaign was aimed at raising awareness of the healthcare issues faced by a low-income community. While her intention may have been to bring attention to the problems faced by her patients, her actions could have also exposed the patients and their families to public scrutiny and judgment, and possibly compromise their privacy and dignity [49:13]. The residents of the community have a right to access healthcare, and it is Maria's responsibility as a medical practitioner to ensure that they receive adequate care. However, sharing patient information on social media must be done with caution and in a manner that respects the patients' privacy, dignity, and autonomy. This case highlights the need for healthcare practitioners to maintain a balance between raising awareness of healthcare issues and protecting the privacy and dignity of the patients they serve. It is important to ensure that any campaign aimed at raising awareness is carried out in a manner that is just and equitable and respects the rights and dignity of the patients.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is justice. Justice is the obligation to treat people fairly and equitably and to ensure that everyone has access to the same opportunities [49:11]. In this case, Maria's social media campaign was aimed at raising awareness of the healthcare issues faced by a low-income community. While her intention may have been to bring attention to the problems faced by her patients, her actions could have also exposed the patients and their families to public scrutiny and judgment, and possibly compromise their privacy and dignity [49:13]. The residents of the community have a right to access healthcare, and it is Maria's responsibility as a medical practitioner to ensure that they receive adequate care. However, sharing patient information on social media must be done with caution and in a manner that respects the patients' privacy, dignity, and autonomy. This case highlights the need for healthcare practitioners to maintain a balance between raising awareness of healthcare issues and protecting the privacy and dignity of the patients they serve. It is important to ensure that any campaign aimed at raising awareness is carried out in a manner that is just and equitable and respects the rights and dignity of the patients.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is beneficence. Beneficence is the duty to promote the well-being of others and to do good [49:10]. Karen's social media campaign was aimed at promoting the importance of organ donation and saving lives. By raising awareness about organ donation, Karen was able to help a family make the decision to donate their loved one's organs, which in turn could save the lives of others. This action demonstrates Karen's commitment to beneficence and her efforts to promote the well-being of others. Medical practitioners have an ethical and professional obligation to promote the well-being of their patients and the wider community, and Karen's social media campaign was a positive example of how social media can be used for good in the medical profession. This case emphasizes the importance of medical practitioners using their social media presence to promote positive health outcomes and the well-being of their patients and communities.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical issue involved in this case is beneficence. Beneficence is the duty to promote the well-being of others and to do good [49:10]. Karen's social media campaign was aimed at promoting the importance of organ donation and saving lives. By raising awareness about organ donation, Karen was able to help a family make the decision to donate their loved one's organs, which in turn could save the lives of others. This action demonstrates Karen's commitment to beneficence and her efforts to promote the well-being of others. Medical practitioners have an ethical and professional obligation to promote the well-being of their patients and the wider community, and Karen's social media campaign was a positive example of how social media can be used for good in the medical profession. This case emphasizes the importance of medical practitioners using their social media presence to promote positive health outcomes and the well-being of their patients and communities.
**
49. Reflection Vignettes
1. Ms. Ivy Griffin is a first-year medical student who has amassed a large following on a social media site, where she shares her experiences and advice on how to navigate the journey into the medical profession. Ms. Griffin has been advising others for over a decade on topics such as nutrition, exercise, sleep, studying techniques, exam preparation, and meeting medical school admissions requirements. Even after the white coat ceremony, Ms. Griffin continues to offer advice on how to maintain resilience and balance in medical school while wearing her white coat. Her followers consist mainly of other medical students who are inspired by her insights and success in the field. However, the ethical implications of a medical student dispensing medical advice on social media without proper supervision or credentials should be considered.
The problem with the first-year medical student having a large following on social media is that the student may inadvertently provide advice that is not evidence-based or is contrary to medical best practices. As a student, the individual has not yet obtained the necessary knowledge, training, and experience to make informed medical decisions or offer medical advice to others. Additionally, the advice provided may not take into account the unique circumstances and medical history of each individual, potentially leading to harm. It is important for the student to recognize the limitations of their knowledge and refrain from offering medical advice on social media platforms. They should also focus on their own education and training and seek guidance from qualified medical professionals when necessary. Finally, they should be cautious about the content they share and ensure that it is accurate, evidence-based, and in line with established medical practices.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
**
2. Ms. Cynthia Forrest, a 42-year-old ICU practitioner at a prominent medical school, has been expressing frustration on the hospital's professional social media website about the increasing number of unvaccinated patients requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) machines in the ICU. She strongly advocates for prioritizing vaccinated patients for ECMO treatment since they have a higher success rate. Ms. Forest also suggests that unvaccinated patients should bear higher insurance rates and be responsible for the economic loss, suffering, and death caused by their lack of vaccination. She firmly believes that individualistic and selfish political ideologies should not supersede public health and safety measures, and that vaccine hesitancy is not a matter of civil liberties, but rather a manifestation of ignorance and recklessness.
The practitioner's behavior and comments on social media may be seen as unprofessional and could negatively impact patient care and the reputation of the hospital and medical school. It is essential to prioritize patient safety and avoid any potential discrimination or bias towards patients based on their vaccination status. The medical school and hospital should have policies and guidelines on the use of social media by practitioners, which should be communicated clearly to all staff. The practitioner should be reminded of these policies and counseled on the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and avoiding discriminatory or harmful comments on social media. Additionally, the practitioner should be educated on the importance of empathy and respect for all patients, regardless of their vaccination status or political beliefs. It may also be helpful to provide additional training on communication skills and patient-centered care. Finally, the hospital should evaluate the potential impact of the practitioner's comments on patient care and consider taking appropriate action to ensure that patient care is not compromised. This could include monitoring the practitioner's behavior, offering additional support to patients, and ensuring that all patients have equal access to necessary medical care, including ECMO machines, regardless of their vaccination status.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
***
