Ethics Case Anaysis - Essay Example

Case Study Analysis: Healthcare Ethics of the appears here] of the institute appears here] appears here] Case Study Analysis: Healthcare EthicsIntroductionThe case represents an ethical dilemma based on two key principles of the healthcare discipline; namely, autonomy and beneficence. Andre Speaker is sued by the passengers of the airline for knowingly exposing them to the disease. The paper carries out an ethical assessment of the case to determine whether autonomy takes precedence over the public health concern.

The paper also evaluates the ethical responsibility of CDC to deal with such instances. DiscussionAs a healthcare professional, I would attach much higher importance to the principle of beneficence over the principle of autonomy. The facts of the case reveals that at the time of Speaker’s flight, the diagnosis of his condition corresponded to an untreatable, and even more importantly, and highly contagious form of the tuberculosis (Harrigan, 2010). An airplane is essentially a closed tube with recycled air being circulated within the place during the entire duration of the flight.

Therefore, Speaker had knowingly put numerous other patients in danger of counteracting an untreatable, highly contagious and life threatening disease. Not only have the passengers within the place but also the people in their surrounding environment (household, workplace, etc.) been threatened by Speaker’s decision to take a flight (Morrison, 2011). The principle of beneficence has a very strong relevance in this given situation. Speaker had a moral obligation to act in a manner that promotes the health and wellbeing of others.

The right to autonomy comes with a responsibility. Speaker failed to uphold this responsibility (Shahian & Normand, 2012). The Centre for Disease Control has acted ethically when it involuntarily quarantined Andre Speaker. The Centre for Disease Control is responsible for making decisions in the larger interest of the public. Even after the differential diagnosis showed that Speaker’s tuberculosis is a treatable form of the disease, Speaker still remains a threat to the public health. Tuberculosis is a highly contagious disease through the nasal cavity (Harrigan, 2010).

The disease is also air borne which raises the degree of threat to the public in a significant manner. For this reason, CDC has acted both ethically and in line with its organizational objective by making the decision to quarantine Andre Speaker (Morrison, 2011). Had CDC left the decision of quarantine up to Speaker, then this would have been unethical. The principle of beneficence has a much stronger relevance in the situation given above than the principle of autonomy. The principle of autonomy does not have a strong relevance because the decision to quarantine does not impact the patient alone (Shahian & Normand, 2012).

Instead, the health of the general members of the public is dependent on the decision to quarantine Speaker. ConclusionThe paper discussed an ethical dilemma based on the principles of autonomy and beneficence. The evaluation of the facts of the case showed that Andre Speaker is rightly sued by the passengers of the airline since he failed to uphold the principle of beneficence. At the time of Speaker’s flight, the diagnosis of his condition corresponded to an untreatable and contagious form of the tuberculosis.

Speaker had a moral obligation not to pose threat to the health and wellbeing of others. It is also concluded that the Centre for Disease Control has acted ethically when it involuntarily quarantined Andre Speaker. Finally, it is concluded that the principle of beneficence has a much stronger relevance in the situation given above than the principle of autonomy.ReferencesHarrigan, M. (2010). Reflections on Healthcare Leadership Ethics: Values and virtue. Healthcare Management Forum, 23(2), 97-99.

Morrison, E. (2011). Ethics in Health Administration: A Practical Approach for Decision Makers. Ontario: Jones & Bartless Publishers.Shahian, D., & Normand, S. (2012). Autonomy, Beneficence, Justice, and the Limits of Provider Profiling. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 59(25), 2383-2386.