Ethics

Nurse L was acting in a morally correct way when she gave Michael G the information.  Yes has acted morally based on the following arguments

Michael has the right to know all the facts and relevant information about cancer and all the treatment modalities for Leukaemia.  He has the right to informed consent and this means  that he has the right to know all the relevant facts and all the risks involved in whatever process he is undergoing (T Mappes, 2006). Nurse L upheld Michael Gs right and she acted in compassion consistent with the Hippocratic Oath (Murphy, 2004) by explaining alternative therapies.

Michael G personally decided not to undergo chemotherapy and he did this decision in consultation with his family with their corresponding approval. In so doing, Michael G takes on all the responsibility and eventually consequences to himself. In case he dies in the process, neither Nurse L nor the Oncologist is to be held responsible. Where Michael G got the information on alternative therapies is already immaterial because by making a decision to try alternative therapies, he has cleared the responsibilities of the Oncologist and Nurse L on the possible consequences of his decision.  The principle that is followed here is that health should be patient centered (O. Corrigan, 2008). Michael G was in his full faculties when he made that decision. Michaels family also acceded to that decision bringing into his decision the social and normative support of society and lessening possible blame on the Oncologist and the Nurse in case something bad happens as a consequence of that decision.

Nurse L did not discourage Michael G from undergoing chemotherapy. She just presented alternative therapies. Therefore she cannot be directly blamed for Michael Gs decision not to undergo chemotherapy.  Alternative therapies are not exclusive therapies and Michael G could have decided to take alternative therapies alongside chemotherapy.  Nurse L performed all her duties and was not negligent and therefore there is no basis for her licence to be revoked.

Negative Position and Arguments
Nurse L did not act in a morally correct way on the basis of the following arguments
She misinterpreted the meaning of informed consent because it only means that Michael G should be aware of all the risks and facts involved in the process of chemotherapy.  Informed consent in this case is about the intended intervention chemotherapy. It is no longer necessary to inform Michael G of alternative therapies which are still not yet scientifically proven.

 Nurse L is putting Michael G to risk by informing him about practices that are not yet recognized, acceptable and standard practice in cancer treatment. If something happens to Michael G, then Nurse L is partly to blame.

The Oncologist should have the final word on what informed consent is sufficient because he is dealing with the standard, acceptable and scientifically proven practices (T Mappes, 2006). If the Oncologist was able to discuss the risks and facts involved in chemotherapy, then Michael Gs agreement is already informed consent.  

Nurse L did not present the relevant medical facts to Michael G because the alternative therapies are still not tested scientifically. What she presented is information that may be fallacious and irrelevant to the treatment.  The medical profession is an expert and scientific profession and Nurse L acted unprofessionally.

My Position
The bone of contention here is the definition of informed consent as applied to the case and whether Michael G was presented all the RELEVANT facts about the case.

Both parties are using the informed consent argument albeit with different definitions and applications.  In any case, Nurse L cannot be held responsible on the assumption that alternative therapies do not contradict chemotherapy. The treatment modalities presented are not exclusive therapies that run counter to each other. They can in fact complement each other. So it is immaterial whether Michael G got limited information or not, whether the information he got is relevant or not, in the exercise of his right to informed consent. Second is that it was Michael G and his family who decided not to undergo chemotherapy, not the doctor or the nurse. The word consent itself means that it is something that is freely given by the subject himself. Assuming that Michael is in his right faculties, this decision now erases all medical responsibilities from Nurse L and the doctor.

Conclusion
The argument over the definition of informed consent and the relevance of the information presented to Michael G in this case is only apparent but not real.  If chemotherapy and the alternative therapies were mutually exclusive (though they are not) then the arguments would be real. This is going to be a major scientific debate on what is standard practice and thereby subsequently debating on what kind of informed consent and relevant information should be given.  The patient centered discourse supporting the right of Michael G should not also discount the expert centered discourse supporting standard and acceptable medical practice. In this case, the doctor should let Michael G sign a waiver that he was given all the relevant facts and that he personally decided to choose only the alternative therapy leaving the doctors conscience free from possible blame.