Ethical Case Study

Ethical Case Study

The health care profession exposes practitioners to a myriad of moral dilemmas, lead them to struggle to choose between right and wrong courses of action (Zahedi et al., 2013). Often, such situations compel them to make hard decisions in their effort to enhance good. For instance, the ethical case mentioned above denotes an incident of a scarcity of the influenza vaccine in a rural county. The situation poses a risk to the health of the residents. The crisis obligated the county health department to issue a directive compelling health care providers to prioritize the vaccination of pregnant women and elderly of American descent. However, the continual exposure of the health care staff to the virus in their endeavor to administer the vaccine to patients signals elevated their risk of acquiring the infection and transmitting it onto their family members. This situation led one practitioner to consider taking some of the vaccines home to administer to his loved ones, hence fostering the emergence of an ethical dilemma.

The patients in the case display various needs and desires. The first is the need to receive a medical examination, diagnosis, and treatment tailored to help alleviate their illnesses. In pursuing this endeavor, patients usually desire for health providers to provide them with equitable care regardless of their nationality, race, or ethnicity (Zahedi et al., 2013). The masses on their part also desire for health providers to benefit from preventive health services, including vaccines, to help reduce their risk of developing the disease. This situation is primarily factual among the vulnerable population groups, including the elderly, pregnant women, and young children. Hence, it is reasonable to expect them to demand to know the reasons behind the shortage of the flu vaccine. Also, they may desire to discern the duration of time in which they will have to wait for a resolution. They may also wish to understand the risk the delay may pose on their health as well as the actions that they could take to reduce their vulnerability to infection as they awaited a solution.

This ethical dilemma obligated the county health department to make several displeasing decisions. This situation affected the relationships among the critical stakeholders involved. One such is the relationship between the health providers and the patients, which emerged from the directive commanding practitioners to prioritize native-American patients in administering the vaccine. It fostered discrimination in the provision of care, which betrayed the trust that patients bestow upon health providers to promote equity in care. Also, the crisis threatened to sever the relationship between the county health department and the masses who entrust them with the responsibility to safeguard them from disease through the issuing of timely preventive services. This situation is primarily factual due to the uncertainty surrounding the provision of additional vaccines in the coming weeks to help protect the masses from the risk of infection.

Similarly, the propensity of the crisis to limit health providers from partaking actively in their duty to offer limitless and equal preventive health services to the masses denoted its effects on health institutions. The crisis also affected the county health department by compromising its image among the public. Mainly, it bred a feeling of mistrust among the masses on the capability of the department to safeguard them from disease by issuing them with the vaccine in good time. This situation profoundly explains the decision by the clinic nurse to contemplate taking some vaccines home to administer to his family.

This case also displays a conflict in the code of ethics for nurses. Mainly, the second provision of the code recommends for nurses to prioritize the needs of the patients (Haddas & Geiger, 2019). However, the directive issued by the county health department dissuades nurses from fully exercising this mandate. Mainly, it encourages them to foster inequity in the provision of care through the discrimination of patients on the grounds of their nationality. Doing so jeopardized the perceptions of the masses regarding the reliability and dependability of health care services in the county. Also, the decision by the clinical nurse to take some vaccines home and administer them to his family further indicates their inclination to promote self-interest, which also violates this code.

Also, the department of health failed to provide honest feedback to all stakeholders regarding the crisis and its resolution. They included the health care providers, patients, and the general public. This situation denoted a conflict in their inherent value of committing to safeguarding the health of the masses. It further worsened through their directive for health providers to discriminate against non-native Americans in the administration of the vaccine. Mainly, the framework displayed their lack of compassion for the plight of the vulnerable population groups among the refugee population, including pregnant women as well as seniors. It further denoted their compromise of provision eight of the code, which advocates for nurses to strive to reduce health disparities (Haddad & Geiger, 2019). This situation signaled the need for the department to implement a decision that promoted the health of the masses. Such a decision should accord priority to those in critical need of care without bias.

As the immunization clinic nurse, I would reason ethically by refraining from taking the vaccine home. Instead, I would opt to prioritize the needs of the patients, particularly the vulnerable population groups in critical need of the vaccine. This action aligns with the first code of ethics for nurses, which encourages us to aim to put the needs of patients first.

Also, in my quest to safeguard my family against the risk of contracting the flu virus, I would request the county department of health to foster the vaccination of the health providers. I believe that this action is necessary to reduce their risk of contracting the flu hence dissuading them from spreading it to others in their community.

Finally, I will recommend for the county department of health to consider vaccinating the vulnerable population groups among the refugees as well. Mainly, the frailty of their health likens to that of the at-risk populations among the American natives. As such, discriminating against them is unfair as it exposes them to developing complications with their health, which could lead them to require critical care hence elevating the costs to the health care system. Also, the decision aligns with the code of ethics for nurses, which encourages us to advocate for patient’s health and strive to reduce disparities in health care.

Overall, I believe that it is essential for me to refrain from taking the flu vaccine home to maximize the chances of the optimal vaccination of patients in critical need of treatment. Also, I feel that it is vital for the county department of health to foster equity in the distribution of the vaccine among the vulnerable population groups in both camps to minimize the onset of complications with their health. More importantly, I think it suffices for them to aim to immunize nurses from the flu. In my view, a failure to pursue this action is unacceptable since the endeavor will help to promote the health of a more significant segment of the population by preventing nurses from spreading it in their communities.

References

Haddad, L. M., & Geiger, R. A. (2019). Nursing Ethical Considerations. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing.

Zahedi, F., Sanjari, M., Aala, M., Peymani, M., Aramesh, K., Parsapour, A., … & Dastgerdi, M. V. (2013). The code of ethics for nurses. Iranian journal of public health, 42(Supple1), 1.