Ethical principles in healthcare justify moral rules and judgments utilizing the normative theory. Healthcare workers are guided by ethical values to recognize dilemmas in healthcare delivery, make good judgments, and observe the laws that govern them. Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are the four ethical principles that are vital in ensuring high-quality care.
Case Study Overview
Jenna and Chris Smith are parents to 5-years old Ana without complications at Community Hospital. Ana’s parents desire to raise her in an exclusively natural way. However, they are against the vaccination of their daughter, raising concerns over the risk of Autism based on their research in online mommy blogs. Dr. Kerry attempts to convince the Smiths of the relevance of vaccination in preventing infection by chronic diseases. She describes that vaccines are monitored and updated regularly using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and no vaccines have been found casual for any developmental disorder. Dr. Kerr informs the Smiths that developmental disorders’ infection is likely due to a weak immune system and genetics. After confirming their understanding of Dr. Kerr’s explanations, the Smiths insist that they don’t want Ana to be vaccinated.
Dr. Kerr faced an ethical dilemma of whether to vaccinate Ana or respect the Smiths’ choice of not vaccinating their daughter. Since there is no scientific-based evidence to support the Smiths claim, myths that vaccination is a risk factor for developmental disorder contributed to the healthcare issue. The digital media influence the choice of Ana’s parents after research in online mommy blogs. There is a high prevalence of health misinformation on social media characterized by myths that affect attitudes and responses to healthcare challenges.
Using the ethical decision-making model will guide Dr. Kerr’s action to resolve the ethical dilemma. The ethical decision-making model constitutes moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior (Rus & Groselj, 2021). Moral awareness acknowledges the ethical aspects of whether or not to vaccinate Ana. The moral judgment of the ethical decision-making model will ensure a moral decision regarding Ana’s immunization dilemma. Moral awareness and moral judgment lead to ethical behaviors. Ethical behaviors also advocate for effective communication and interaction by Dr. Kerr. Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice principles are the basis for the ethical decision-making model.
Communication Approach in Healthcare
The verbal communication approaches adopted by Dr. Kerr were informative and educative to compel the Smiths to revoke their decision of not vaccinating their daughter. First, Dr. Kerr critically listened to the Smiths’ reasons for foregoing vaccination and the perceived harms accruing vaccination. By conveying attentive listening, Dr. Kerry can build trust and rapport and demonstrate respect for the Smiths. Building trust and rapport with the Smiths encouraged them to state their values and priorities.
After listening to the Smiths’ concerns, Dr. Kerry responds by first acknowledging the controversies surrounding vaccination. By starting a response with a positive statement that appreciates the Smiths argument, Dr. Kerry can catch their attention and create an environment for open conversation. Dr. Kerry then informs the Smiths of the significance of vaccines in saving millions of children globally and curbing epidemics (No Author, 2022). By acknowledging the importance of vaccination, Dr. Kerry intended to change the Smiths’ false attitude towards vaccination. She used examples of chronic infections that have been mitigated using vaccination, including Haemophilus influenza type b and measles. Using relatable examples would aid Dr. Kerry in ensuring the Smiths understood her argument to change their attitudes.
Dr. Kerry goes on to educate the Smiths on vaccines’ regulation, quality, and safety assurance. She identifies government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which are reliable data sources on the efficacy of various vaccines. I suppose that educating the Smiths on evidence-based data was intended to discredit sources relied on by the Smiths. She admits that only vaccines containing therasol, an ingredient causing Autism, do not increase Autism. Describing an element of the vaccine previously presumed to cause Autism is a bad communication skill since it seemingly supports the Smiths’ argument. She concludes by notifying the Smiths of the causes of Autism and the negative impacts of defying immunization. Although Dr. Kerr’s communication was informative and educative, it was not persuasive and prompting hence unable to change the Smith stand on vaccination.
Applying Ethical Principles to Resolve the Ethical Dilemma
Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are ethical principles applicable in resolving the moral issue of whether or not to vaccinate Ana. First, the principle of autonomy dictates that health recipients have the right to self-determination regarding health. However, incompetent children such as Ana indirectly apply the principle of independence through parents or guardians. Since indirect autonomy is used to the third party, it is not self-representation and may not hold the patient’s best interest (Rus & Groselj, 2021). The principle of beneficence allows Dr. Kerr to act in Ana’s best interest by preventing harm or conditions that will cause harm. It would be, therefore, ethical for Dr. Kerr to administer the vaccine following the beneficence principle.
The principle of non-maleficence discourages Dr. Kerr from harming Ana. The code of non-maleficence can be applied by ensuring that the vaccines have no side effects. Additionally, it is ethical to vaccinate Ana following non-maleficence since failure to immunization would lead to adverse harm in the future. The moral principle of justice ensures equality in healthcare by providing patients access to reliable treatment despite ethnicity, social orientation, and economic status. Although indirect autonomy does not support Ana’s immunization, principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice ethically justify mandatory vaccination.
References
No Author. (2022). Incident 10: To Vaccinate or Not? Ethics Case Study.
Rus, M., & Groselj, U. (2021). Ethics of vaccination in childhood—A framework based on the four principles of biomedical ethics.Vaccines, 9(2), 113.