Ethical decision making in health and patient care revolves around making good choices, which will not harm the parties involved. However, ethical dilemmas may arise when more than one choice is available, and neither will result in wrong or right consequences.
The experiences, beliefs and values of the healthcare provider/ stakeholder will determine how one arrives upon a decision; abortion is one such situation. In weighing the options concerning whether to perform an abortion and how to care for the patient, a healthcare entity must consider the legal implications, the patient’s and provider’s beliefs as well as the health effects of that decision.
Abortion is an ethical issue in the health profession because it touches on human rights. Opinions become divergent on this matter because stakeholders have different ways of defining personhood (whether an entity is a person). It is generally agreed that taking away a human life is unethical. However, abortion debates centre on deciding whether the fetus is a human being or not. If a person deems the fetus as a person, then it possesses human rights that should be protected.
Conversely, if the ethical decision maker thinks a fetus is not a person, then he or she might treat an abortion as an ethical decision. However, the mother’s autonomy and independence to make decisions about her own body must also be considered. Issues of quality of life also come into the picture because if an abortion endangers the life of a mother, then one must give primacy to the life of the mother over the unborn child. A mother’s interest could conflict with that of a fetus, and this will determine which path will be chosen.
One should note that the United States provides safe abortion with only 0.07% requiring some form of hospitalization. Healthcare professionals must familiarize themselves with these arguments in order to know where their options lie. However, their decisions have legal implications.
Prior to performing an abortion, a healthcare institution or provide must consider the legal implications of doing so. In the United States, federal states have different interpretations of abortion. However, all states generally agree that providers must not be forced to perform abortion or providers should not coerce women into having abortions.
Since the topic is quite controversial, then most parties agree that restrictions on the same are reasonable. They also believe that medically necessary abortions have to take place. However it is the nature of these restrictions that they do not agree on. Some states restrict providers while others focus on women. When targeting providers, they focus on physicians, hospitals after certain periods of maturity, required reporting, and refusal clauses.
For instance, in Nebraska, an institution cannot perform an abortion after a twenty-week gestation period because it causes pain to the child. Oklahoma laws allow medical practitioners to restrict information about a fetus with disability if they think it will cause the mother to have an abortion. In Utah, willful termination of a pregnancy is treated as manslaughter or murder.
States may also target women by restricting funding, insurance coverage, waiting periods, accessing counseling information and requiring them to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat. In funding, seventeen states in the country fund abortion in Medicaid while others have been forced by state courts. Some states like South Dakota only pay for funding when a mother’s life is in danger. In North Carolina, women cannot get access to funding for Medicaid (Meckstroth 12).
All the above information is necessary in deciding whether an abortion will take place or not. If a medical practitioner gives precedence to his person beliefs without incorporating these laws, then he or should could be acting morally but illegally. However, healthcare professionals have the right to conscientious refusal to perform an abortion.
This is the point whether their ethical values come into play. For instance, if a physician finds an anomaly in the fetus, the choice to refer an abortion or to refrain from telling the mother in states that allow it has ethical implications. It could be violating a mother’s right to information and privacy, but it could also be upholding the provider’s values of respect for all human life as well as the baby’s rights. In order to come up with the best decision, the provider should balance conscientious refusal with the patient’s interests. He should consider patient autonomy, informed consent, the patient’s health as well as doing the least harm.
In the event that a practitioner decides to exercise conscientious refusal, it is incumbent upon the person to do a referral. However, even this choice has ethical implications because of the financial interests of the patients may contradict the referee’s interests. Choices have to be made based on the patient’s welfare (National Abortion Federation 3).
Medical providers are required to refrain from coercing patient’s into abortions. Therefore, the patient must make the choice to have an abortion. However, if the patient is incompetent, then a surrogate should be selected. A provider must exercise due diligence in ensuring that the surrogate has no ill intentions. Failure to do so could result in an unethical decision.
Health professionals have a series of conflicting interests that they must reconcile in abortion and patient care. These interests range from legal, moral, financial to health concerns. When deciding upon a decision involved in abortion, good practice dictates the use of morally neutral or morally good actions.
The practitioner ought not to intend bad consequences while the good consequences should not be directly related to the bad one (violating fetus’ rights over the mother’s rights). Ethical decision makers need to balance between the bad and good consequences of the act.
Works Cited
Meckstroth, Karen. Political and ethical issues in abortion today. 2011. Web.
National Abortion Federation. Ethical standards of abortion care. 2011. Web.