In the course of healthcare professionals’ practice, they face ethical dilemmas that require critical and analytical decisions. In most cases, healthcare professionals face complicated scenarios presenting complex decision-making. Five fundamental principles guide healthcare ethical decision-making: beneficence, fidelity, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. Autonomy focuses on the independence of a decision, while nonmaleficence focuses on not hurting others. Beneficence, on the other side, is the concept of the healthcare professional contributing to the welfare of the patient, whereas justice emphasizes treating everyone as equal (Capella University, 2018). Finally, fidelity revolves around the concept of honoring commitments, loyalty, and faithfulness. Health practitioners can use these principles to make sound ethical decisions, benefitting the patient. The above guidelines are widely accepted in the medical community. This paper examines a case study on moral principles, analyzes the ethical issues, and the effectiveness of using communication strategies to analyze the case study.
Summary of the Case Study
Jenna and Chris Smith are the parents of a five-year-old baby girl named Ana. The child was delivered in a community hospital and has had no complications since birth. The parents have brought in their daughter for her first check-up with Dr. Angela Kerr. Dr. Kerr is a board-certified pediatrician with extensive expertise and knowledge in medical vaccines and research. Ana’s parents, since birth, expressed the intent to raise their baby as naturally as possible. Thus, in the first six months, they breastfed their baby, making their organic baby food and not vaccinating their baby. After extensive research, reading blogs, and more, the college-educated couple claims that vaccines’ disadvantages outweigh the benefits. For instance, they suggest that studies have shown that vaccines cause increased rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Dr. Kerr comprehends the parents’ concerns about the vaccines’ uncertainties. The United States Public Health Service and the American Academy Of Pediatrics recommended thimerosal removal from vaccines in 1999. However, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute Of Medicine rejected the hypothesis on the relationship between autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines in 2004. The doctor explains to the parents the importance of vaccines in reducing the mortality rates in children. If the child is not vaccinated, she will be at a high risk of life-threatening infections caused by preventable diseases. Consequently, she elaborates that some children cannot receive medication since they have a weakened immune system. Despite all the advice from the doctor, the parents decide against vaccinating their daughter. Ethical Issues Analysis in the Case Study
The issue that led to an ethical dilemma in the case study is the parent’s decision not to vaccinate their child, despite Dr. Kerr advising their daughter is at high risk of contracting infections from preventable diseases. In other words, the Smiths decided to raise their daughter naturally and not expose her to any vaccines for fear of the dangers it might cause their daughter. Dr. Kerr had the moral obligation to inform Jenna and Chris Smith of the latest vaccine research when she realized that the parent’s study was founded on a mommy blog post. As a professional health practitioner, she had to advise based on accredited sources and demonstrate to the parents the implications of not vaccinating their daughter. Besides, Ana is at a high risk of contracting preventable diseases that could end up with serious health implications. Analyzing the Case Study Using an Ethical Decision-Making Model
There is a need to understand the ethical decision-making model’s components to analyze the case study effectively. The ethical decision-making model includes three concepts; ethical behavior, moral awareness, and ethical judgment. The first step to demonstrating ethics is through moral awareness. Ethical awareness is a concept that acknowledges the existence of an ethical dilemma. In other words, it is the ability to appreciate, detect, or recognize the moral aspects that a decision should follow. Ana’s parent’s verbalization of deciding not to vaccinate their daughter reflects Dr. Kerr Moral’s awareness.
Secondly, moral judgment is the decision to choose between right and wrong when faced with an ethical dilemma. Dr. Kerr demonstrates her moral judgment through her decision to advise and convince Ana’s parents to vaccinate her. The doctor believes that this would help to protect Ana from preventable diseases.McDermott-Levy et al. (2018) elucidate that when faced with a moral dilemma, an individual should think about their decisions’ impact and consequences. Therefore, Dr. Kerr demonstrates moral judgment by evaluating the situation, and the parent’s behavior, and delivering the best course of action. She thinks that Jenna and Chris’s decision would affect the health of the child in the future, denying her the right to a healthy life.
Moral behavior is the ability of an individual to act according to one’s moral standards and values. The doctor’s moral behavior is showcased through her skills and actions, implying that she cares about Ana’s welfare. Her moral judgment and awareness prove that she has demonstrated ethical behavior by convincing the parents to vaccinate their daughter. In conclusion, as a healthcare professional, the doctor incorporates the four principles of ethics to determine the right or wrong decision in her practice.
The Case Study Effectiveness of Communication Approaches
In medical practice, several communication approaches are vital to ensuring effective service delivery. All medical practitioners use a listening approach to communicate and understand their patient’s issues and thought processes. In other words, listening enables individuals to understand what one another is saying. The key to good communication is good listening skills. In the case study, Dr. Kerr listens to the Smiths’ concerns about the correlation between vaccines and autism disorder (McDermott-Levy et al., 2018). Listening allowed her to establish a starting point on how she would educate the two parents regarding their concerns. She establishes that she cannot vaccinate the child without the parent’s permission; she presents a well-detailed argument with the required information to make the most informed action course.
Another aspect of effective communication is adapting communication to conform to the audience. Dr. Kerr adopts her transmission to match the smiths. She goes ahead and states the potential risks Ana is likely to face from infectious diseases if she is not vaccinated. Besides, she explains the importance of the herd community in eradicating diseases. Clarity is also demonstrated in the case study as the doctor endorses vaccines' general safety by informing Chris and Jenna that vaccines are updated and reviewed regularly using data sources such as the federal government vaccine adverse reporting system (VARS). The doctor followed a systematic approach to communicate and listen to the parent’s issues and get them to an understanding of the appropriate benefit of vaccinating their daughter.
Applying Moral Principles in Resolving Ethical Dilemmas.
Nonmaleficence, justice, beneficence, autonomy, and fidelity are the five ethical principles that guide decision-making. In the case study, the moral dilemma is because of Jenna and Chris’s autonomous decision not to vaccinate their daughter. Health practitioners took the Hippocratic Oath of beneficence, looking out for their patients. Plus, not harming their patients (nonmaleficence). Dr. Kerr is bound by this oath and must protect and not hurt her patients. Therefore, the doctor has the choice of terminating her services as the child’s pediatrician until she is vaccinated. The decision is taken as a means of convincing the parents to change their minds on vaccines. Alternatively, Jenna and Chris can look for a new pediatrician for their daughter. The course of action is to solve the ethical dilemma the two parties are facing.
Conclusion
The five principles of ethical healthcare practice can help professionals solve the moral dilemmas they face in their workplaces. The doctor is faced with the moral obligation of not harming and protecting their patients’ welfare. Therefore, she has to decide whether to uphold this obligation or to respect the child’s parents for not vaccinating their daughter. The application of the four principles helps the doctor to solve her ethical dilemma. Moreover, in the case study, there are instances of effective communication approaches. Dr. Kerr uses her listening skills to listen effectively to the parents’ concerns about vaccination’s side effects. She also adapts her communication in a manner that Jenna and Chris can understand. She advises the parents that not advising their child is putting her at risk of contracting preventable diseases that would hurt their daughter.
Stuck on your essay?
