Ethical Principles and Nursing Standards and Codes to Varied Scenarios - Case Study Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Law and Ethics Course: Institution: Date: Law and Ethics Abstract Once the nurse-patient relationships develops, the work of the nurse of diagnosing, assessing, treating and managing the patient becomes entrenched in ethical contexts, where nurses are required to apply moral reasoning to come up with effective and ethical decisions. Applying ethical reasoning does not come naturally and therefore, nurses have to continuously practice it in order to acquire this skill and ensure moral reasoning is embedded in a nurse’s way of doing things. More often than not, medical issues are complex in nature and both the nurses and the patients may find themselves engrossed in emotionally charged situations. This necessitates nurses to rely on ethical standards and ethical principles in order to resolve ethical concerns and ethical dilemmas. This forms the basis of this report which seeks to apply ethical principles and the ANMC nursing standards and codes to varied case scenarios, with the view of solving the ethical dilemmas present in the scenarios. Scenario 1 Introduction There are varied bioethical principles that are applied in different medical situations with the view of solving ethical dilemmas. Among these principles is the bioethical principle of beneficence. The bioethical principle of beneficence is linked to the utilitarian theory of ethics (Gardiner, 2003). The main aim of this principle is to ensure nurses act in the best interests of their clients at all time (Levett-Jones & Bourgeois, 2010). Be it as it may, the principle is limited to duty and therefore, although a nurse’s obligations are to do good for their patients, the nurse holds the right to admission as argued by Karnani, (2008). In scenario 1, the report will apply the principle of beneficence to Kate’s ethical dilemma and offer a sound and objective solution. Case analysis The ethical dilemma in this scenario is essentially about Kate trying out her idea for her research project on patients prior to putting up a proposal. Although her idea would in due course be of help to other people including the patients, based on the principle of beneficence, it is crucial that all her actions are at all times in the best interest of the patients and she does well, by them. This means that all her tests must not at any given time, cause harm on the people she uses for her research. However, Kate does hold the option of selecting among the clients, the participants that she includes in her research project. Since all activities and actions by the medical personnel ought to be for the interest of the patient, I would be reluctant to be part of the plan to use the clients, unless Kate is able to justify to me and to other relevant persons such as the administration and the clients, how the research will do good or will be of benefit to the clients. Failure to do so, I am obligated under the principle of beneficence to report Kate to the relevant parties in order to ensure the interests of the clients are observed and taken into account at all time (White, 2005). Alternatively, to ensure no harm occurs at any time, as a new Registered Nurse in the facility, I have the duty to advice Kate to seek approval from the administration of the facility, from the Chief Nurse, from the medical personnel dealing specifically with the clients she seeks to use for her research and more importantly, Kate need to seek approval from prospective research participants (Benjamin & Curtis, 2010). By seeking approval from the administration, the Chief Nurse and the relevant medical personnel, this will ensure that she not only has permission to access the client’s personal records but also, it will facilitate analysis on the safety of the research to the clients and guarantee that the research does cause harm to the aged people and make certain, the research does not interfere with the management plan of the aged clients at the facility. Based on the principle of beneficence, this will ascertain that no medical harm is done (Daniels & Daniels, 2004). Approval from the prospective research participants and their families ensures that consents are given and therefore, no emotional, physical and mental distress will be experienced by the participants when the tests begin, because they will have prior knowledge about the tests as supported by Hally, (2008). Conclusion The bioethical principle of beneficence suggests that nurses are obligated to be of benefit to their clients and ensuring they have taken all the necessary actions of preventing and eradicating any harm from them. Based on the bioethical principle of beneficence, nurses have the duty to do good by their patients. Doing good means that nurses must ensure that no harm come to the patients at all time. Based on the scenario, Kate must justify to herself, to me and to other relevant stakeholders that the research she seeks to do will benefit and be of the best interests of the clients. Scenario 2 Introduction Among ethical principles that bind medical practitioners is the bioethical principle of non maleficence. According to the principle, a nurse is accountable for preventing any harm happening to their patients through acts of commission or omission (Daniels & Daniels, 2004). One has the responsibility to take into account the possible harm, which can happen to a patient owing to actions or decisions taken by the medical personnel (Butts & Rich, 2012). In scenario 2, the report will seek to solve the ethical dilemma presented by applying the principle of maleficence. Case analysis The principle of non-maleficence calls for medical personnel to ensure at no one time do they purposely do needless harm through acts of omission or commission, thus obligating them to take standards of due care for their patients (White, 2005). The types of participants that Kate is dealing with in her research project are aged and therefore, their physical, emotional and psychological strength is wanting. This means that carrying out the tests such as stretching, lifting, walking for the 300 meters, doing arithmetic and bending may directly or indirectly cause harm to the clients, which violates the principle of non-maleficence since, the actions have the potential to cause harm. On the other hand, it is crucial that all the stakeholders who include the medical personnel in charge of the clients, the Chief Nurse, the client’s family, the administration and the client to be made aware of the type of tests the research will entail. This is crucial in preventing the clients from participating in tests that may bring harm to them since according to the principle of non-maleficence; the clients should not be exposed to needless harm through acts of omission or commission as argued by Gardiner, (2003). Kate and I are obligated not to omit any information regarding the tests, which is crucial in ensuring medical competence when dealing with the client. Failure on part as a registered nurse and failure of Kate to share all the necessary information with the relevant persons and to engage the clients in an exercise that can create harm to them, makes us ethically and legally at fault for failing to practice due diligence in applying the standards of due care as required by the principle of non-maleficence (Benjamin & Curtis, 2010). Conclusion The principle of non-maleficence stipulates that a nurse to be held accountable for preventing any harm happening to their patients through acts of commission or omission. This means ensuring that the client is exposed to no risks. As indicated in the scenario, I am obligated to inform Kate of the need to ensure the type of tests the clients are taken through during the research process do not at any time, expose them to any risk. This can be achieved by ensuring all relevant parties have all the information regarding the tests prior to carrying out the tests. Scenario 3 Introduction The bioethical principle of autonomy is among ethical principles that guide the decisions and actions taken by medical personnel in dealing and offering solutions to medical ethical dilemmas they face in their work. According to the principle, patients seeking medical services should and must be engaged in coming up with health care decisions that affect their health and life in general (Butts & Rich, 2012). Patients have the right and free will to accept or decline any decisions affecting them and therefore, they must be engaged in order for them to make informed decisions (Levett-Jones & Bourgeois, 2010). In scenario 3, the report will seek to apply the bioethical principle of autonomy to solve the ethical dilemma. Case Analysis Kate is willing to not only use client records but also initiate the research and tests on aged clients without seeking approval from both the administration, the personnel providing direct care to the clients, from the family of the clients and more importantly from the clients. Based on the principle of autonomy, this is ethically wrong on Kate’s part and I am obliged to inform the relevant parties and failure of which I become legally and morally blameworthy. Regardless of the benefits that Kate assumes the clients will have from undertaking and participating in her research project, it is imperative that the clients are informed of them (Karnani, 2008). In addition, Kate needs to inform all the concerned parties particularly the prospective participants, not only of the benefits of the research activities but also, of any negative implications and impact that may arise from participating in the said activities. This will be fundamental in ensuring that clients that decide to participate, they give Kate informed consents as echoed by (Daniels & Daniels, 2004). Other than the clients giving informed consents, applying the principle of autonomy which requires engaging clients in the decision making processes regarding their health and person in general, ensures that the decisions that are generated and implemented aligns with the cultural, belief system and the individual ideals of the clients (Benjamin & Curtis, 2010). The principle of autonomy does not only entail engaging the clients in making decisions but also, the issue of respecting and ensuring the confidentiality of the patient is part of the principle (Hally, 2008). For this reason, Kate needs to seek approval to use the client’s record and even sign confidentiality agreements with them to ascertain their confidential information remain as such. Conclusion The bioethical principle of autonomy is an essential principle informing the medical practice as it involves giving the client the right to decide what to and what not to do with their health and life in general. The right to be engaged in decision making ensures that clients give informed consent. Based on the scenario, Kate needs to seek approval to sue client records and undertake the research from the administration and inform the prospective clients of her research in order to respect their privacy and ensure they are knowledgeable about what they are getting themselves involved with. Scenario 4 Introduction Primarily, nurses have the moral and legal responsibility, for themselves, for their colleagues, to the community and to their clients to offer quality healthcare (Levett-Jones & Bourgeois, 2010). The ANMC codes are developed and implemented to act as a point of reference for nurses in their practice to ensure their decisions and conduct does ensure quality healthcare is provided at all times as indicated by ANMC, (2008). According to Butts & Rich, (2012), the codes, are standards by which the performance and conduct of nurses is measured against. The codes include nurses valuing offering all people quality nursing care, valuing respect and kindness for themselves and others and valuing people diversity (White, 2005). In addition, valuing accessibility to quality nursing care for all, valuing informed decision making, valuing provision of safe care for all and finally, valuing ethical management of information (ANMC, 2008). Scenario four seeks to apply the ANMC codes to the ethical issues in relation to Kate’s plan. Case Analysis Kate’s plan to access the records of clients and to start her research project on clients at the facility for the aged without approval from the administration, the nurses offering care to clients, the client’s family and more importantly from the client present the main ethical issues of the case. Based on the ANMC codes of valuing provision of safe care for all, Kate is legally and morally liable in terms of ensuring the safety of the client. This means that the tests she seeks to do on the clients must be analyzed and established not to expose them to any physical, psychological and emotional risks among other form of health risks, which can be achieved by engaging all the relevant persons (Karnani, 2008). By applying the ANMC code of valuing informed decision making, Kate has the moral duty to value informed decision making by ensuring prior to accessing the client’s record and initiating the project, she duly informs all the parties concerned on the implications both positive and negative, of the research tests to the clients (Hally, 2008). Engaging clients in decision making in order to generate informed consents is closely linked to ANMC code of valuing the respect for others, which obliges Kate to respect the confidentiality of information in the client’s record by seeking approval from the management and taking my concerns as an RN and a colleague into consideration as she pursues her goals (Gillon, 2003). To ensure this, Kate must seek consent from the relevant parties and engage every relevant person in her decision making. By so doing, she will be able to ethically manage all information she accesses during her research project. Conclusion The ANMC codes are vital for nurses in ensuring that their decisions and conduct are aligned to ethical values and standards. The codes act as point of reference for nurses while solving ethical dilemmas. By applying the ANMC as highlighted in scenario 4, Kate will be able to make ethically and legally sound decisions in carrying out her research project. Bibliography ANMC. (2008). Code of Ethics for nurses in Australia. Australian Nursing & Midwifery Council. Accessed on 29th July 2012 from http://www.anmc.org.au/userfiles/file/research_and_policy/codes_project/New%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20for%20Nurses%20August%202008.pdf Benjamin, M., & Curtis, J. (2010). Ethics in Nursing: Cases, Principles, and Reasoning. Oxford University Press. Butts, J.B. & Rich, K.L. (2012). Nursing Ethics. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Daniels, R. & Daniels, R. (2004). Nursing Fundamentals: Caring & Clinical Decision Making. London: Cengage Learning. Gardiner, P. (2003). A virtue ethics approach to moral dilemmas in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29:297-302. Gillon, R. (2003). Ethics needs principles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, p307-312. Hally, B. (2008). A Guide for International Nursing Students in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Elsevier Australia. Karnani, N. (2008). Bioethics: Applying the Basic Principles to Resolve an Ethical Dilemma. Northeast Florida Medicine Supplement, pp3-5. Levett-Jones, T., & Bourgeois, S. (2010). The Clinical Placement: An Essential Guide for Nursing Students. Sidney: Elsevier Australia. White, L. (2005). Foundations Of Nursing. London: Cengage Learning. Read More