NHS FPX 4000 Assessment 3 Attempt 1 Applying Ethical Principles

Effectiveness of Communication Approaches in the Case Study

6

Dr. Kerr maintained a professional demeanor throughout her interactions with the Smith’s. She listened to them intently and established rapport. She acknowledged their fears surrounding vaccines and attempted to allay them with facts and medical-based research. She effectively communicated the reasoning and importance of getting Ana vaccinated when she addressed vaccine prevented illnesses, the CDC/FDA’s updates on the safety of vaccines, the significance of herd immunity and how most states require vaccinations before children can attend school. All of this information was essential in ensuring that the Smith’s would be able make a well-informed decision.

Dr. Kerr effectively communicated her points, but she could have done more to convince the Smith’s to vaccinate Ana. Maybe if Dr. Kerr had done some more digging to find out if there were any other reasons they refused to vaccinate their daughter, or she could have given them some medical literature or pamphlets on vaccines. Maybe that would have been the tipping point.

Resolving the Ethical Dilemma by Applying Ethical Principles

The four ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice are often employed to resolve ethical dilemmas related to health care. (Varkey, 2020) Autonomy refers to a patient’s right to self-determination and informed consent, beneficence refers to acting on the welfare of patient’s, nonmaleficence refers to doing no harm, and justice refers to treating patients fairly and without bias. 

The ethical dilemma that Dr. Kerr faces in this case involves three of the four basic principles of medical ethics. In the case study, the ethical dilemma is created by a conflict between the Smith’s right to autonomy and Dr. Kerr’s obligation to beneficence and 

7

nonmaleficence towards Ana. Dr. Kerr preserves Jenna and Chris’s autonomy by respecting their beliefs and not forcibly vaccinating Ana.

 

  Approaching Child Protective Services—a social service agency run by the government to counsel and support children and their families and promote child welfare—could be considered by Dr. Kerr as an ethical means to resolve the dilemma. As Dr. Kerr is obligated to provide proper medical care to Ana (beneficence) and prevent any harm to her and the general public (nonmaleficence), she could seek intervention from Child Protective Services. Although involving Child Protective Services could result in overriding the ethical principle of autonomy, Dr. Kerr will have to make this decision keeping Ana’s best interests in mind.

Conclusion

In conclusion, healthcare professionals should use the ethical – decision making model concurrently with the four ethical principles of health care to resolve any and all ethical dilemmas. At the end of this case study, Dr. Kerr is perplexed and unsure of what to do after the Smith’s rebuke her attempts to convince them to vaccinate their daughter Ana. Dr. Kerr and the interdisciplinary team should regroup and analyze both the model and ethical principles and then follow-up with the parents to try again.

8

References

Varkey, B. (2020b). Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119