Health care providers need to grasp ethical theories to assist them in reasoning and prioritizing principles when a conflict emerges. Ethical theories play a significant role in helping the health care professionals assess their actions, avoid bias in assisting as well as justify their actions and decisions. However, the application of all ethical theories does not demonstrate the need to guide ethical decisions envisioned at advancing the well-being of the patient. In Ms. R’s case, there is a conflict between autonomy and beneficence. The health care team seem to be entangled between providing the right intervention for the sake of Ms. R’s health and her autonomy. The team should not support Ms. R’s decision to live at home and take what action it can to pressure her into moving in with her daughter or into a residential care facility, developing a care plan accordingly.
The principle of autonomy insists that the health team should respect Ms. R’s freedom of self-determination (Devettere, 2010). This principle is based on the notion that individual should have control over their life choices and be allowed to make decisions that define their fate. Ms. R has decided to live alone, even though, her condition continues to deteriorate and, as a result, her autonomy has been respected by the health team (Kirk, 2014). It is for this principle that the team is unwilling to bully Ms. R into compliance and the same time neither were they willing to leave her in her psychical distress.
An aging process is a multidimensional event affected by various factors such as chronic diseases, cultural standing, and life choices. The older people become, the more they are susceptible to illness. Ms. R’s autonomy puts her in a self-neglect position where she is unable to move around the house, look after her health or control the condition affecting her life (Kirk, 2014). She has recently fallen twice with sustained bruises. When self-neglect is added to aging process, the challenges for the older patient become hard to manage. Although refusal of relocation in Ms. R’s case reflects the belief that must be respected and honored, it can be considered as an extreme manifestation of self-neglect.
The principle of beneficence calls for the health care providers to do well in the decisions concerning the health and well-being of the patient. This principle explains the obligation to protect the well-being of patients, by doing no harm and maximizing benefits while minimizing risks (Rai, 2010). The health team has tried to live up to the ideals of beneficence. Ms. R receives visits from a physical therapist who provides her with self-care skills (Kirk, 2014). Although, she has refused to relocate, the health care team tries to accomplish their goals of ensuring a better living condition for Ms. R.
Ms. R’s autonomy has compromised the health team’s beneficence aimed at helping her. The health condition of Ms. R is deteriorating, thus, limiting the capabilities of the team to apply the principle of beneficence in ensuring no harm. Besides, she has difficulties living independently because she has a mild decision-making capability, a decreased mobility, a habit of falling, and it is costly to hire a hospice on a regular basis. However, the health care practitioners have a duty to ensure the well-being of their patients. Therefore, relocation will be an ethical move in this dilemma.
Ms. R is in no state to care for herself. Her life choice has resulted in her self-neglect, which in turn has caused her situation to worsen. Involuntary relocation will ensure having health and well-being of Ms. R under control.
References
Devettere, R. J. (2010). Practical decision making in health care ethics (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Kirk, T. W. (2014). Staying at home. Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing, 16(4), 200-201.
Rai, G. S. (2010). Medical ethics and the elderly (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Medical.