NHS FPX 4000 Assessment 3 Applying Ethical Principles

Healthcare providers work in environments that predispose them to significant ethical dilemmas. Often, they have to adopt ethical decision-making approaches in coming up with sound decisions that promote professionalism and the rights of their clients. Practice issues such as the refusal of parents for their children to be vaccinated increases the need for healthcare providers to make moral and ethical decisions (Leask et al., 2012). Ethical principles that inform the decisions of healthcare providers in such situations include justice, benevolence, non-maleficence, confidentiality, and autonomy among others (Halstead et al., 2020). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore ethical principles that would be applied to address the selected case study involving parents who do not want their children to be vaccinated. The explored areas in the analysis include an overview of the selected case study, ethical issue, ethical decision-making, communication approaches, and the application of ethical principles to resolve the issue.

Overview of Case Study

The selected case for this analysis is incident 10 case study, which involves parents that have refused their child’s vaccination. Jenna and Chris Smith are the parents of a 5-day old baby girl, Ana. The parents have refused vaccination of their child because of the harm that the vaccines might have on Ana. Accordingly, they express that vaccinating their child will predispose her to autism due to the effect of vaccines. Jenna and Chris consider that the best alternative to raising their child will involve exclusively breastfeeding, using organic foods, and not vaccinating her to promote her health and wellbeing. After listening to their concerns, Dr. Angela Kerr, a pediatrician, takes her time to provide the parents scientific information about the safety of vaccines. She educates them that vaccines have saved lives of millions of children over the past century. Dr. Kerr also educates them about the manner in which the government updates information about vaccine safety through databases that include the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting (VAERS). The database is open to the public for it to be updated on the safety of vaccines. The pediatrician also informs them about the importance of immunization in minimizing the predisposition of the unvaccinated populations to diseases (Ethical Case Study, 2020). Despite this information on the benefits of vaccination, the Smith’s family does not accept Ana’s vaccination.

Analysis of the Ethical Issues in the Case Study

The ethical dilemma in the case study is refusal of the Smith’s family for their daughter to be vaccinated. Dr. Kerr feels that Ana’s family should be educated about the scientific benefits of vaccination and risks of not having their daughter vaccinated. This is after she finds out about their misinformed perceptions towards vaccines. Dr. Kerr experiences the ethical dilemma of beneficence and autonomy. Autonomy entails respect the decisions that patients make while beneficence entails doing good to others (Gesser-Edelsburg et al., 2018; Healy et al., 2022). Dr. Kerr has the professional and ethical responsibility of ensuring Ana’s safety and health is protected through vaccinations. She also has the ethical responsibility of respecting the decisions of the patients. As a result, she experiences ethical dilemma on the best decision to adopt. Laws on the individuals that should make decisions on the care to be given to a patient vary across countries. Most countries recognize that parents or guardians have the responsibility of making decisions for children aged below eighteen years (Navin et al., 2020). Dr. Kerr considers the legal requirements of ethical practice, hence, facing dilemma of protecting the child’s health and respecting the autonomy right of the parents.

NHS FPX 4000 Assessment 3 Applying Ethical Principles