Utilitarian principle of ethics assesses outcomes of actions as either right or wrong basing on their goodness or badness. According to the principle, a morally right outcome is the one that gives greatest benefits to most people (Park, 2011). In other words, the principle of utility holds that the consequences of actions should have maximum benefits and minimum losses. Hence, in the case study, the best decision is to let the patient undergo surgery because its consequences have the greatest benefits to the patient and family. Since the patient has been suffering from gallstone disease for eight years, surgery is the best intervention that would heal the patient.
The principle of equality holds that all people have equal rights in accessing healthcare services. Rosenbaum (2011) states that the objective of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is to enhance fairness, affordability, accessibility, and quality of healthcare services in the health care system. In this case study, the patient should receive equal healthcare services as other patients irrespective of the nature of insurance package or cost. Underinsurance or high cost of healthcare should not be barriers that hinder patients from accessing quality healthcare services because it is against the principle of equality. Thus, the patient should receive equal treatment as other patients.
The principle of need asserts that the needy people should receive a greater share of resources than those who are not needy. Healthcare providers should assess patients and consider their needs in decision-making (Heiskell, 2010). The patient in the case study is very needy because she has endured gallstone disease for 8 years, she is unable to afford surgery, and she is underinsured. What is preventing the patient from receiving appropriate treatment in the healthcare center is the cost of surgery and underinsurance. Therefore, basing on the assessment of needs, the ethical course of action is to fund the patient to undergo surgery.
The principle of contribution is also applicable in the analysis of the case study. Insurance companies apply the principle of contribution when compensating their clients. Since the patient subscribed to the underinsurance package, she deserves to get commensurate compensation. According to Rosenbaum (2011), the standard insurance package is virtually impossible, and thus customized packages enhance “stabilization of the insurance foundation on which the entire health care system rests” (p. 131). Therefore, it is ethical for healthcare providers to provide healthcare services that are commensurate to the insurance package that the patient is subscribing.
The principle of effort holds that people make achievements that are proportional to their efforts. This means that the amount of efforts that people place on their work determines achievements that they make. According to the ethical principle of justice, patients should receive a fair distribution of benefits and losses (Heiskell, 2010). In this case, the patient should accept that the insurance provides limited compensation according to the subscribed insurance package. Moreover, the patient should understand that she must pay for the cost of healthcare services for her to receive appropriate services to treat her condition. Likewise, family members should help her achieve essential treatment.
The ethical principle of autonomy gives powers patients to make decisions regarding their healthcare. Heiskell (2010) argues that healthcare providers should offer patients with appropriate information about their illnesses and available treatment options so that they can make informed decisions. Thus, in the case study, the healthcare providers should give the patient a chance to decide on the nature of treatment that she needs and state the sources of money for her medical bills. Since the patient is the ultimate beneficiary of the treatment, it is morally right to consider her decision so long as no one forces or coerces her to choose certain form of therapy.
References
Heiskell, H. (2010). Ethical Decision-making for the Utilization of Technology-Based Patient/Family Education. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 14(1), 1-14.
Park, E. (2011). An Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Model for Nurses. Nursing Ethics, 19(1), 139-159.
Rosenbaum, S. (2011). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice. Public Health Reports, 126(1), 130-135.