Final answer:
The specific outcome of Rank and Jacobson's replication study is not detailed in the provided text, but the question revolves around obedience to authority in medical settings. It reflects upon various studies and scenarios where healthcare professionals were influenced by superiors' orders, even against their own beliefs or guidelines, demonstrating the complexity of ethical decision-making in healthcare.
Step-by-step explanation:
In relation to the question about what happened when a known doctor telephoned in a prescription to give Valium at three times the recommended dose, there is not enough information provided in the text to determine the specific outcome of the Rank and Jacobson replication of the "Astroten" study. However, the context of the question appears to explore themes of obedience to authority in medical settings, much like the Milgram experiment and subsequent studies examined obedience. Several supporting examples suggest that in different contexts, healthcare professionals may prioritize adhering to protocols or may take actions based on instructions from superiors, even when those instructions conflict with their own judgment or established best practices.
For instance, the study by Martin and Bull shows that when a senior midwife requested junior midwives to perform procedures they had previously opposed, most complied, demonstrating obedience to authority. In another example highlighted, Dr. Pronovost proposed using a checklist in ICU settings for inserting central intravenous lines, with nurses empowered to ensure that all steps are followed. These discussions mirror the dilemma described in the original question, wherein nurses might face a decision between following a potentially harmful order from a doctor or adhering to medical guidelines and their own ethical standards.