The case of Mr. Brown In Brown's case, it may be reasonable to assume that the risk of harm was not greatly increased because a student performed the procedure. The resident had known her for 2 weeks and was likely justified in deciding that she was ready to attempt a chest-tube insertion, which he would supervise closely. However, even though the procedure was completed without complications, Brown's treatment was indeed compromised. It is tempting to minimize the impact of Brown's temporary insecurity by weighing it against the resulting benefits to the common good. However, the same precarious reasoning could be applied to research that involves test subjects in trials that could be harmful but ultimately may benefit the majority.
Informed consent is paramount in such trials.
Similarly, patients should be informed and allowed to choose whether a student participates in their care. The potential impact on medical training does not outweigh the moral, ethical and legal necessity of telling a patient the truth. The search for solutions Dishonesty can undermine trust within the doctor patient relationship. It affects patients not only during the medical act but also in the future because it will colour interactions between patients and their caregivers. We must consider ways to promote honesty within medical training.