Develop a solution to a specific ethical dilemma faced by a healthcare professional by applying ethical principles. Describe the issues and a possible solution in a 3-5 page paper. Introduction Whether you are a nurse, a public health professional, a health care administrator, or in another role in the health care field,

Applying Ethical Principles- The Missing Needle Protector

Summary of Case Study

This is a summary of incident 9. The case involves an ethical challenge due to a missing needle. It includes Cutrite, who has had physical and mental problems over the years but still carries out procedures, and Mr. Straight, the clinic’s director; the operating room (OR) supervisor; Mrs Jameson, the patient; the scrub nurse; and the chief of surgery. The OR supervisor reported to Mr Straight a surgical error in which they suspected that they had left a plastic needle protector in Mrs Jameson’s belly after surgery (Ethical case studies topic: The Missing needle protector., n.d.). The surgery had been conducted by Cutrite. The scrub nurse also confirmed that the syringe was used during the surgery but did not remember about the needle protector. Mr Straight suggested they recall Mrs Jameson and check for the missing item in her belly without her knowledge. However, it gets complicated since Mrs Jameson had been discharged two days earlier. Although the OR supervisor had talked to Dr. Cutrite, the doctor did not see the missing needle protector as an issue, citing that the patient would only experience some discomfort. The doctor also warned that they do nothing about it. The chief of surgery suspects something is wrong after consultation with Mr Straight but ignores it. Mr Straight was afraid to cross off with Dr Cutrite on the matter as he was very powerful politically, and he feared for his employment.

Analysis of Ethical Issues Using the Ethical Decision-Making Model

The three components of the Ethical Decision-making Model include moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behaviour. The ethical decision-making model improves the capabilities of healthcare professionals to make rationally explainable ethical healthcare decisions (Grote & Berens, 2020). The model can be applied in the case above to identify the ethical issues and failure to satisfy the ethical challenges presented in the case by the various individuals through ethical decisions.

The majority of the ethical issues, in this case, can be linked to Straight and Dr. Cutrite. Straight’s suggestion to recall the patient and reoperate her to search for the missing needle protector without the patient’s knowledge shows ignorance of making moral judgments as a health professional. He lacks honesty. He is also afraid to confront Dr. Cutrite on the issue in the case and his clinical decline, fearing for his employment since the doctor has strong political affiliations. This further shows poor moral judgment. Dr Cutrite is morally unaware and lacks acceptable ethical behaviour for his profession. He suggested ignoring the case even though it may cause harm to the patient. This shows a lack of moral judgment and moral awareness. Dr. Cutrite breaks all the fundamental ethics of healthcare to do no harm and provide care that is beneficial to the patient. Moral judgments inform ethical decisions through micro-level factors that determine moral decisions, such as being mindful of actions and having a moral responsibility for actions and decisions (Small & Lew, 2019). Dr. Cutrite lacks moral responsibility and is less mindful of the health of the patient. His actions are of less interest to the patient’s well-being. All of the individuals involved in the case lack accountability. The scrub nurse and the operating room supervisor did not account for every item, while the chief of surgery ignored Straight’s question even if he suspected something was amiss.

Academic Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles as Evidence to Support Analysis of the Case

Steelman et al.’s (2019) article is relevant to this case as it aims to describe the various Unintentionally Retained Foreign Objects (URFOs) with a focus on the types of URFOs, location, contributing factors, and the URFOs harm. The aim of the study was to develop recommendations to improve perioperative safety. The study reviewed 308 incident reports. Based on the study, the most common URFOs include instruments, catheters and drains, needles and blades, packaging, implants, and specimens. The URFOs had the potential to extend stay and cause temporary to severe and permanent harm and death. The contributing factors to the incidents were linked to either human, leadership, or communication factors. The authors provide recommendations to manage these factors, including team and individual training, elimination of disruptive and distractive factors, accounting for all objects used during surgery, exploring the surgical site before closure, inspecting tools after surgery, and promoting a safety culture, including reporting events and near misses, and proactive risk assessment. This article is credible as it was published by the Joint Commission Journ