Ethical Dilemma in Healthcare
The recent ethical issue occurred in my hospital settings involving a minor in need of urgent care and conflicting religious beliefs of his parents. Smith had developed kidney failure as a result of spreading streptococcus infection. Besides, Smith had elevated blood pressure and build of fluids that warranted immediate dialysis to relieve the condition. Therefore, the patient’s condition was adequately acute to require immediate medication. Immediate dialysis was recommended by the doctor but eventually had to forego the procedure in favor of faith healing services as demanded by the patient’s parents. The physician a dilemma between conducting rounds of dialysis to relieve the minor and letting his parents take him for faith healings. It represents a clear conflict between religious faith and medication for the minors.
Guiding Bioethics Principles
Four main principles of medical ethics guide the conduct of nurses and physicians while administering care to patients. The non-beneficence compels healthcare givers to desist from harming the patient in the course of delivering care. The principle of beneficence requires that given care should benefit the patient. The justice principles of bioethics require caregivers including physicians to respect the rights of patients. The principle of autonomy requires doctors to freely patients to be part of and contribute towards their care plan (Page, 2012). In Smith’s case, the principle of autonomy and justice was applied by the doctor. Ultimately, the physician was compelled to follow the principles of bioethics by allowing parents to take Smith for faith healing rather than providing immediate care.
Consequences of Decision
The decision fails miserably in entirety as the condition of Smith deteriorated further and was returned to the facility after two days and compelled to place their kid on dialysis. However, dialysis was only a temporary treatment as his deteriorated condition now demanded a kidney transplant. The parents’ earlier decision for opting for faith healing over medical treatment was regrettable. The physician ought to have considered State and Federal law regarding decisions involving minors (Povar et al. 2016). For many state laws, authority to treatment consent or rejection for the minors rests with parents or guardians (Bhanji, 2018). However, there are some exceptions such as when parents’ decision seems not to serve the best interest of the minor.
Nursing Interventions
In Iowa and several other states, the law allows the physician to exercise their professional discretion in making decisions on minors in some situations such as Smith’s case (Hoehner, 2020). It was clear from a medical point of view that Smith needed immediate dialysis, and parents’ refusal of treatment was not in the best interest of the minor. The best ethical decision in the circumstance of Smith was to administer immediate treatment rather than faith healing. Backed by state laws, the most relevant intervention was to exercise discretion and professional judgment to compel parents to accept dialysis, rather than principles of bioethics.
Conclusion
The paper has clearly illustrated a case of ethical dilemmas in nursing practice between making a decision between conflicting religious faith and medication for the minor. The physician was torn between conducting rounds of dialysis to relieve the minor and letting his parents take him for faith healings. Ultimately, the physician was compelled to follow the principles of bioethics by allowing parents to take Smith for faith healing rather than providing immediate care. However, since parents’ decision was not in the best interest of the minor from a medical point of view, the most relevant intervention was to exercise discretion to force parents to accept dialysis, rather than following the principles of bioethics.
References
Bhanji, S. M. (2018). Health Care Ethics. Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics, 4 (1):142. doi: 10.4172/2155-9627.1000142
Hoehner, J. (2020). Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care. Retrieved from https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi413v/practicing-dignity-an-introduction-to-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-care/v1.1/#/chapter/3
Page K. (2012). The four principles: can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making?. BMC medical ethics, 13, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-10
Povar, G. J., Blumen, H., Daniel, J., Daub, S., Evans, L., Holm, R. P., … Campbell, A. (2016). Ethics in Practice: Managed Care and the Changing Health Care Environment: Medicine as a Profession Managed Care Ethics Working Group Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004, 141 (2), 131-136. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-2-200407200-00012
