IADR Abstract Archives
ETHICAL ISSUES IN DENTISTRY: EVALUATION FROM STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess students’ knowledge and opinion on ethical issues in dentistry by presenting 2 cases which pose ethical dilemmas.
Methods: Two case scenarios related with ethical issues were presented to 39 senior dental students. The first case was related with a patient with multiple dental problems who refused to listen to the details and wished to sign the informed consent only. The second case was about a patient whose PFM bride was fractured and wished to have another bridge done free of charge. The students were given 4 different options in terms of the correct approach and asked to select one. They were also asked to note additional comments if they thought of another option.
Results: In the first case, the majority of the students (17) thought about starting minor treatments, however refused to proceed with implants or prosthetic treatments prior to consulting the patient. Eleven students insisted on explaining the patient about treatment options and risks before initiating any treatment, which was the expected answer. In the latter case, the majority of students ( 22) selected the first answer, which was to replace the fractured bridge, free of charge. Although there was no explicit answer to this question, the response of most of the students about replacing the bridge brought into question about the obligations of the dentist towards the patient and the significance of informed consent.
Conclusions: Both cases presented emphasize the significance of informed consent and the responsibilities of the dental practitioner towards the patient as a healthcare provider. Students should regulary be informed about the importance of a thorough explanation of the advantages and risks to a patient prior to initiation of any kind of dental treatment.
Methods: Two case scenarios related with ethical issues were presented to 39 senior dental students. The first case was related with a patient with multiple dental problems who refused to listen to the details and wished to sign the informed consent only. The second case was about a patient whose PFM bride was fractured and wished to have another bridge done free of charge. The students were given 4 different options in terms of the correct approach and asked to select one. They were also asked to note additional comments if they thought of another option.
Results: In the first case, the majority of the students (17) thought about starting minor treatments, however refused to proceed with implants or prosthetic treatments prior to consulting the patient. Eleven students insisted on explaining the patient about treatment options and risks before initiating any treatment, which was the expected answer. In the latter case, the majority of students ( 22) selected the first answer, which was to replace the fractured bridge, free of charge. Although there was no explicit answer to this question, the response of most of the students about replacing the bridge brought into question about the obligations of the dentist towards the patient and the significance of informed consent.
Conclusions: Both cases presented emphasize the significance of informed consent and the responsibilities of the dental practitioner towards the patient as a healthcare provider. Students should regulary be informed about the importance of a thorough explanation of the advantages and risks to a patient prior to initiation of any kind of dental treatment.