Applying Ethical Principles
For a while, the use of vaccines has sparked numerous controversies globally. Ideally, vaccines are essential for preventing diseases, yet many patients have raised health concerns, making them reject vaccination due to the underlying myths about vaccines (Rabinowitz et al., 2016). As a result, physicians have often encountered ethical dilemmas in care delivery due to the disconnect between the patient’s perceptions and their opinions about vaccines (Rabinowitz et al., 2016). This ethical dilemma is on whether to vaccinate or not to vaccinate Ana. However, for better care delivery and reduction of various health concerns and dilemmas, four ethical principles govern healthcare decision making that bolsters effective care delivery. These principles include justice, autonomy, nonmaleficence, and beneficence (Levitt, 2014). Thus, the purpose of this paper is to develop a solution to a specific ethical dilemma of whether to vaccinate or not faced by health care professionals using the three components of the ethical decision-making model (moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior) and the four ethical principles mentioned above.
Overview of the Case Study
Jeanne and Chris Smith are blessed with a baby girl, Ana, who is five days old. As responsible parents, the Smiths want their baby to grow naturally without using vaccines that involve organic foods and breastfeeding for the first six months (In Darr et al., 2017). Most importantly, Anas’ parents are college-educated, and based on their knowledge and research; vaccine harms are more compared to their benefits among the infants. Dr. Angela is aware of various concerns about vaccines amid many parents begins providing consent to the Smiths on the importance and use of vaccines, especially in the treatment of deadly measles pathogens and Hemophilus influenzae type b bacterium (In Darr et al., 2017). Furthermore, Dr. Angela provides more information related to acceptable vaccines, including and suggests for them credible government websites where they can get reliable information about vaccines authorized by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Besides, Dr. Angela informs the Smiths of the significant risk factors associated with the inability to use vaccines among infants, such as high mortality and morbidity rates (In Darr et al., 2017). The pediatrician concludes by informing the Smiths that as parents, they have the freedom to decide or not decide to vaccinate their child, and the Smiths confirm their understanding of Dr. Angela’s consent (In Darr et al., 2017). However, the parents stand firm that their child cannot be vaccinated, a situation that makes the pediatrician remain perplexed, and in a dilemma on whether to proceed with the vaccination as a medical professional or respect the Smiths decision not to vaccinate Ana.
Analysis of Ethical Issues in the Case Study
Based on the case study, Dr. Angela’s ethical dilemma is caused by the Smiths rejection of vaccination for their 5-year old baby, Ana due owing to their prior knowledge and myths about the harmful effects of vaccines. However, Dr. Angela seems to be aware of the existing controversies and healthcare concerns and decides to inform the Smiths on the benefits accrued when vaccines are used and the dire consequences that they may encounter if the child is not vaccinated. The pediatrician also respects Smiths’ decision to bring up Ana in a natural way. However, Dr. Angela does not actively involve the Smiths in her conversation but instead pumps them with consent on the benefits of vaccinating and disadvantages of not vaccinating a child. Because the doctor informs the parents that they have the freedom to vaccinate the child or avoid it, the Smiths firmly decline Anas’ vaccination as it may lead to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other complications (In Darr et al., 2017).
Using the Ethical Decision-Making Model to Analyze the Case Study
The use of an ethical decision-making model in care delivery has been proved to protect not only patients and families but also employees from mistreatment and harm. The model has three facets, which include moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior. Most importantly, Levitt-Rosenthal (2013) emphasizes that embracing ethical conduct among healthcare professionals and in healthcare facilities is a breakthrough towards minimizing numerous ethical dilemmas during care delivery. Dr, Angela portrays moral awareness when she acknowledges that vaccines have indeed sparked controversies and hotly debates in recent years. Besides, the pediatrician is morally aware that because of several health concerns about vaccines, most parents opt raising children in a natural way to avoid potential vaccine threats. Also, Dr. Angela her moral judgement when she decides to provide consent for the Smiths after intently listening to their sources of vaccine information and their decision about Ana’s vaccination. Finally, Dr. Angelo’s ethical behavior will fully depend on the steps she will use to handle the underlying dilemma through the use of the four ethical principles mentioned above.
Effectiveness of Communication Approaches in the Case Study
Possessing of good communication skills are integral in delivery of better and quality healthcare services. According to Tauro University (2020) listening is an essential part in the communication process. However, the ability to listen extends from getting what one is saying to comprehending what has been said. Dr. Angela has effective patient-physician communication skills as she intently listens to the Smiths concerns about vaccines before providing consent. Furthermore, Dr. Angela understands that the concerns from Anas’ parents may be largely contributed by misinformation because the Smiths read blogs about vaccines harms. Thus, intent listening enabled Dr. Angela to pinpoint where to start her consent delivery to Anas’ parents.
Additionally, being aware of other people’s emotions and sympathizing with others is a key during patient-physician communications. Thus, one should be ready to know or be concerned of what happens on other people’s lives (Tauro University,” 2020). Dr. Angela is aware of the vaccine concerns and controversies based on the information received from the Smiths. As a result, she bothers to provide more information about benefits of using vaccines and the risks beneath avoiding to use vaccines among infants. The pediatrician sympathizes with the Smiths through her dedication to provide enough information so that they can understand the importance of vaccines. Besides, Dr. Angela uses examples to explain the meaning of terms and the relationship between vaccines and ASD.
However, there were some inefficiencies and shortcoming in the communication between Dr. Angela and Anas’ parents. Firstly, the pediatrician failed to diagnose preferences of the Smiths. When providing consent and making recommendations, patients’ preferences should be taken into account (Tauro University,” 2020). Besides, understanding patient preferences enable physicians to provide sound advice to patients. Also, Dr. Angela failed to activate Ana’s parents during consent delivery. Effective communications require turn-taking. Dr. Angela spoke more compared to Ana’s parents. As a result, it interfered with the ability of Ana’s parents to make appropriate decisions about vaccination. Dr. Angela should have used open-ended questions and actively engage the parents in the discussion instead imparting excess knowledge to the Smiths without engaging them in active listening. Therefore, effective personal decision making requires active involvement of patients and not making them passive listeners.
Resolving the Ethical Dilemma by Applying Ethical Principles
Levitt’s 2014 research indicates that the four healthcare ethic principles can be effectively used to overcome numerous care delivery dilemmas. Dr. Angela should use the four ethical principles as a framework to resolving the vaccine or not vaccine dilemma. According to Levitt (2014), the patient has an innate right to have their own opinions, beliefs, and values (autonomy) which the healthcare professional should uphold. Thus, patients should only be encouraged to make their own opinions without judgment or being pushed by a healthcare professional. Furthermore, the patient or the parents of a child have the right to reject or accept the treatment offered to their child (Levitt, 2014). Even though vaccines are typically integral for infants from both theory and practice, the doctor should respect the decision of the Smiths. Therefore, upholding and respecting the autonomy and self-determination of Ana’s parents can be one of the best approaches Dr. Angela can use to resolve the vaccinating or not vaccinating dilemma.
Moreover, Dr. Angela took positive approaches to ensure she is of significant benefit to the Smiths through provision detailed information about the importance of vaccination (beneficence) and the disadvantages of not vaccinating Ana to prevent harm that may occur if parents reject (Nonmaleficence). Finally, Dr. Angela provides consent to the Smiths consent to the Smiths before vaccinating their child (justice) since all patients should be informed before treatments are made. Therefore, Dr. Angela can use justice ethical principle to resolve the dilemma by treating the Smiths with respect which includes respecting their decision not to vaccinate Ana.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the four healthcare ethics principles are vital in resolving the vaccinating or not vaccinating Ana. Therefore, Dr. Angela should adhere to the Smiths decision to raise their daughter in a natural way without vaccines. Therefore, physicians should not only focus put more focus on healthcare decision-making procedures but also embrace the use of the four healthcare ethics principles as a framework to overcome dilemmas.
References
In Darr, K., In Farnsworth, T. J., & In Myrtle, R. C. (2017). Cases in health services management. Incident 10: To Vaccinate, or Not? [Case Presentation]. Retrieved from https://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/nhs4000element18655/wrapper.asp
Levitt, D. (2014). Ethical decision-making in a caring environment: The four principles and LEADS. Healthcare Management Forum, 27(2), 105-107. doi: 10.1016/j.hcmf.2014.03.013
Levitt-Rosenthal, N. (2013). Ethics, values, and decision making. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 30(1), 27–32.
Rabinowitz, M., Latella, L., Stern, C., & Jost, J. T. (2016). Beliefs about childhood vaccination in the united states: Political ideology, false consensus, and the illusion of uniqueness. PLoS One, 11(7) doi: http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0158382
Tauro University. (2020). 5 Ways to Define Good Communication: Effective Communication Skills. Retrieved from https://www.tuw.edu/program-resources/good-communication/