The ethical dilemma in the case study is that of religious belief versus medical practice. While the physician diagnosed the child with meningitis and provided appropriate treatment, the parents declined the treatment due to their religious beliefs as Christians, and consequently sued the physician and the hospital for overruling their decision as surrogates. In this view, the physician faced an ethical dilemma that entailed beneficence versus autonomy. The ethical principle of beneficence requires healthcare providers to do good by acting in the best interest of the patient. In contrast, the ethical principle of autonomy requires healthcare providers to respect the decisions of a patient or surrogates. In this case, the physician is in a dilemma whether to follow the principle of beneficence or respect the decision of the parents as per the autonomy principle.
The resolution of the dilemma requires the use of the appropriate ethical decision-making model. An integrated ethical decision-making model is appropriate for the resolution of ethical dilemmas. The model has six steps that are applicable in the resolution of ethical dilemmas. Application of the six steps require one to state an ethical problem, analyze the problem, develop and compare alternatives, select the best alternative, implement the best alternative, and evaluate the action (Park, 2012). Since the model has six steps, it provides a comprehensive view of resolving complex ethical dilemmas that involve many parties. Therefore, by following all the six steps, the model effectively resolves the dilemma in the case study.
In the first step, the ethical dilemma is between the principle of beneficence in the treatment of meningitis and the principle of autonomy with respect to the decision of the parents. Meningitis is a disease that requires emergency treatment, and thus the dilemma needs emergency resolution. The second step involves analysis of the problem in terms of the parties involved. In this case, the parties involved are the patient, the parents, the physician, court, and the hospital. In the third step, the available alternatives are to treat the patient in accordance with the ethical principle of beneficence or allow the parents to make their decision in accordance to the ethical principle of autonomy. Given that meningitis is lethal disease, the best alternative according to the fourth step is to act in the best interest of the patient within the shortest time possible. Lyndon (2012) argues that for healthcare providers to act in the patient’s interest, they must have adequate knowledge, an accurate understanding of the clinical condition, and the capacity to take a stand on dilemmas. The fifth and the sixth steps entail implementation and evaluation of the best alternative, which are treating and saving the life of the patient respectively.
The outcome of the model is saving the life of the child. If the physician had complied with the principle of autonomy by agreeing to the decision of the parents, meningitis would have affected the health of the child severely. If the parents had delayed the treatment, the child would have suffered from a disability. Moreover, if the physician had not provided any form of treatment, the child would have died. Therefore, the outcome of the model supports the decision of the physician who acted according to the principle of beneficence to save the life of the child. I agree fully with the outcome of the model because it saved the life of the child. The model is applicable in instances where surrogates are unable to act in the best interest of the patient. Smith, Lo, and Sudore (2012) concur that surrogates sometimes may act according to their own interests, and thus fail to respect the principle of autonomy. In the case study, the parents are Christian scientists; however, they failed to apply their scientific knowledge to save their child, but instead followed their Christian beliefs.
References
Lyndon, A. (2012). Perinatal Safety: From Concept to Nursing Practice. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 24(1), 22-31.
Park, E. (2012). An Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Model for Nurses. Nursing Ethics, 19(1), 139-159.
Smith, A., Lo, B., & Sudore, R. (2012). When Previous Expressed Wishes Conflict with Best Interests. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(13), 1241-1245.