Ethics: Decision-Making Model - Essay Example

Ethics: Decision-Making Model Ethics: Decision-Making Model Ethical Dilemma in the Case Parents are allowed to take decisions pertaining to the health of their children (Coyne, Timmins & Neill, 2010). The case is a classic example of a sick child who has no capacity to make own decisions. As a result, parents are obliged to make decisions for her. The child is diagnosed with meningitis. Parents have conflicting views regarding treatment for their child. The mother uses religious undertones to refuse treatment for the child. The father is adamant that the child should have the treatment. The child is in a critical situation. The mother is not a biological parent of the child. Although she is mandated by law to care for the child, she has no legal right to decide alone on critical matters affecting the child’s health. In this regard, the nurse is indifferent between accepting the religious views of the mother or the father, or invoke laws that require immediate treatment. Bioethics allows parents to make decisions regarding the health of the child. However, there is a conflict in decisions taken by parents. Also, the decisions taken by the mother are hindering immediate care in a critical situation. The principle of beneficence asserts that health professionals must be of benefit to patients brought before them. The principle of beneficence may marry with personal values of the physician. The physician may want to make the right choice for the interest of the child despite the fact the mother is resistant. Thus, the dilemma is whether to accept the mother’s resistance to treatment, the father’s acceptance of treatment or to follow personal values in this case. Decision-making model The dilemma is complex and greatly affects the health of the child. As such, the physician must make an appropriate decision within a short time. The following Uustal (1993) model can solve the dilemma. 1. Definition of the problem and objectives Defining the underlying problems involves finding relevant facts that cause problems. In this case, the child is desperately in need of treatment of a deadly disease. The major problem is that the mother opposes any treatment. The father allows the treatment to go ahead. The physician is confused between following professional and bioethics or personal ethics. 2. Statement of issues in the case and personal ethical position related to the problem I acknowledge that parents have the right to make decisions regarding the health of their children. However, parents should act in a way that maximizes the children’s interests. In this case, I believe that the mothers action do not, by any way, benefit the health of the child and thus is posing a dander in a critical situation. Resisting medical treatment for the child in critical condition is a disgrace and can lead to death, thus, I would immediately consider taking custody of the child (Carmi & Schneider, 2012). Although religious beliefs under the First Amendment ought to be respected, it is inappropriate to expose the child to the beliefs that affect her health. I would argue that the child may not profess the same views if she were an adult. The father supports the treatment. Thus, I would use the decision of the father and my personal values, morals and ethics to go ahead with treatment. 3. Consideration relevant factors and generate alternatives for resolving the dilemma The main factors in the case are the conflicting decisions of the two parents. The conflict may raise an important alternative. The concerns of the mother are detrimental to the health of the child. However, the father is pro treatment. Thus, one alternative is that the health opinion of the mother can be ignored and act immediately basing on the decision of the father. The physician can invoke the doctrine of parens patriae and take immediate custody of the child and provide the required care (Carmi & Schneider, 2012). The law states that the State can take custody of the child who is in danger due to lack of treatment. The second alternative is to evoke personal ethics and act accordingly to save the child. Saving a life may be justifiable in the face of the principle of autonomy. 4. Gathering relevant data necessary to the case This step involves gathering data, both qualitative and quantitative, on the issue at hand. The data to be gathered include data from past cases. The step considers the scenarios in these cases and how they were resolved. By so doing, I may find a similar case that sets a precedent. 5. Examine and evaluate the alternatives After generating alternatives, the next step is to evaluate the alternatives and choose the best (Uustal, 1993). Alternative one suggests that I ignore the opinions of the mother. The mother is not the biological parent of the child. The biological father accepts treatment. The conflict in the decision implies that there is a loophole. As noted, the State may take custody of children who are denied crucial treatment due to parental religious beliefs to avoid a standoff. In this regard, acting on the decisions of the biological father is the best alternative. The second alternative may be appropriate but may raise complex ethical questions. I would also consider asking for professional advice from peers. 6. Develop a plan for implementation The step starts with budgeting for time and energy. The physician must make a decision on how long it would take to implement the decision. The time taken to make the decision must consider the severity of the issue and the constraints (Guo, 2008). In this case, the condition of the child requires immediate attention. Thus, I can use the conventional method of treating meningitis. Upon deciding on a plan, it is important to communicate to both parents about the decisions to administer treatment and the reasons for the decision. 7. Implementation The decision is implemented at this stage. I have solved the dilemma surrounding the case. In this step, I would move the patient for stabilization and further analysis of the situation. I would then begin treatment immediately. 8. Review and Follow up on the Decision Effective decision makers should review their decisions and detect any miscalculations, errors or omissions. Following up on an action brings the attention of the physician to the specificities of the case that may have been overlooked. In this part, I would review all facts and determine what went wrong and what went right in order to enhance future decisions. Family Dialogue I would like to congratulate you for your decision to bring the child to the hospital to seek medical assistance. On arrival, the child had symptoms of meningitis and was diagnosed of the same. However, there was a contention over what action to take basing on the fact that the mother rejected treatment. The decision was heartbreaking given the risky situation. The father, however, agreed that we start relevant treatment on the child. The conflicting views were confusing, and I had to make a decision. I am guided by professional ethics to respect the decision of parents, and also to consider the interest of the child. To avoid such a quagmire, the law requires that the physician takes custody of the child and commence required medication. In this case, the mother and father had a differing view. I chose to accept the decision that matched my personal and professional ethics. The decision is also in the interest of the child. In this regard, I decided to initiate treatment immediately. The health situation demanded that timely action be taken lest we lose the child. Saving patients from distress and death is the primary role of physicians and the State. I hope that you all understand and appreciate that decision. References Carmi, A. & Schneider, S. (2012). Nursing law and ethics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Coyne, I., Timmins, F., & Neill, F. (2010). Clinical skills in childrens nursing. Oxford: Oxford University Press Guo, K. (2008). DECIDE: A Decision-Making Model for More Effective Decision Making by Health Care Managers. The Health Care Manager, 27(2), 118-127. Retrieved from http://www.nursingcenter.com/lnc/static?pageid=800371 Uustal, D. (1993). Clinical ethics & values: Issues and insights. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from Grand Canyon University: http://angel03.gcu.edu/section/default.asp?id=850291 Read More