Bioethics and Morality in Health Care - Essay Example

Morality in Health Care Morality in Health Care Complexities often arise in the field of health because of the conflicts that ariseconcerning the ethical and moral conducts of physicians. Ethics and morality enlighten physicians and other participants in the field on how they should conduct themselves while executing their duties. Ethics defines the rules that these agents should follow while in the line of duty. Morality, on the other hand, argues that health care agents should conduct themselves in ways that are acceptable to the society (Barry, 2012). The conflicts that arise in these two fields take place because different moral principles disagree on their stances. For example, while the principle of autonomy argues that medical practitioners should leave patients to decide about their health, the law of non-maleficence states that health care providers should aim at helping individuals using the best possible means (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). This paper aims at identifying conflicts between theories and principles using a case study of a nurse who lied to a patient about the health condition of one of the patient’s children. The major agents in this case include the nurse, the doctor, and the mother of the children who has been admitted in the hospital. The child who died after being admitted is also a main character because the case revolves around her health condition while in the hospital. The other agents in the case include the three children who survived and their father who was not involved in the accident (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). These are minor characters because their names are mentioned, but they do not act directly. The father of the children was present only when the doctor informed the woman that one of her children had died the previous day few hours after being admitted. This case began when the mother and the children were admitted in the hospital after being involved in an automobile accident. This means that the first major fact of this case is that the woman and her children were involved in an automobile accident before being admitted in the hospital (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). The second fact is that the nurse who was on duty on that day knew the woman and her children personally; however, the relationship between the nurse and the woman is not clear. The next fact is that among the four children, only three of them survived from the injuries; while one died. This indicates that the third fact of the case is that three children survived while one who was a female died a few hours after arriving at the hospital (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). Another fact is that the woman in the case suffered from mental disturbance because she was worried about the conditions of her four children who were also admitted in the hospital. The agony of knowing the children’s condition destabilized the mentality of the woman in the case. The main moral issue that is involved in this case is that of telling the truth. The patient’s daughter died a few hours after being admitted in the hospital. When the nurse in charge asked the doctor what they should tell the woman, the doctor advised the nurse to assure the patient that the children had survived the injuries (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). This was a lie because in reality, one of the children had died because she could not survive the harm of the accident. According to the principles of morality, lying is not acceptable in the society, but in this case, the doctor urged the nurse to lie to the patient that her children’s conditions were fine (Barry, 2012). The doctor supported the idea of lying to the woman that all her children had survived the accident. This is because the doctor thought that the woman’s mental disturbance would exceed if she received the heartbreaking news that her daughter had died. The doctor also thought that this was a fine idea because the patient’s husband was not present at the moment when the nurse wanted to break the news to the patient (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). The moral principle that the doctor applied when making this decision is not stated. However, it is clear that the doctor used the principle of beneficence when making the decision. This principle argues that health practitioners should aim at doing everything that they can to help their patients to recover from various disorders (Barry, 2012). The doctor was helping the woman to recover by avoiding telling her news that would worsen the mental distress that she was already suffering. The nurse, on the other hand, heeded to the doctor’s advice of not telling the woman the truth about the death of one of her children. The nurse’s conscience was against this decision, but she chose to observe the doctor’s advice (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). This means that the nurse acted against her wish of telling the truth. This indicates that the nurse applied the principle of non-maleficence when deciding to heed to the advice of the doctor. This principle argues that agents should aim at ensuring that they do not harm other individuals. The nurse did not want to hurt the doctor by acting against the advice of lying to the patient. The nurse did not consider what the patient would feel later after discovering the truth that her child had passed on few hours after being admitted in the hospital. The doctor informed the patient the truth about her daughter the next day when the children’s father was present (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). This made the woman to feel sad because she discovered that the nurse had been lying to her throughout the night. This indicates that the doctor failed to take into consideration what the woman’s reaction would be after finding out the truth. In my opinion, the doctor’s advice to the nurse was not the right thing because it was against the principle of moral justice. The doctor did not consider what the woman would think about the nurse whom she knew personally apart from the fact that they met at the hospital. The decision would have ruined the relationship between these two individuals because the woman would be forced to believe that the nurse was a liar (Barry, 2012). The doctor also failed to consider the effect that the lie would have on the mental condition of the woman who was already suffering from distress. This is because the woman’s condition would have been worse when she found out that her daughter had died the previous day, and yet the nurse was lying to her that the child had survived. The doctor would have lied to the woman by himself to avoid ruining the relationship that existed between the patient and the nurse. This is because after knowing the truth, the woman would have blamed the doctor instead of the nurse for not telling her the truth. The doctor would have also asked the nurse to call the woman’s husband and inform him about the death of the child so that he would come to the hospital and break the news to his wife on the same day. This would have eliminated the risk of increasing the woman’s mental distress because she would find out the truth immediately. This is also because the woman’s husband would have consoled her at that time and she would cool down and recover from the sad news. This decision would follow the rule of justice because the woman deserved to know the truth. The resolutions of the moral principles would be in conflict in this case. The principle of autonomy argues that health practitioners should ensure that patients make decisions about their health status on their own (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). This means that the practitioners may not make any decision concerning the health of the patients because this would be against this principle. Therefore, according to this principle, the doctor and the nurse should have informed the patient about the conditions of her four children. This is because the patient had made a decision that she wanted to know how her children were doing while at the hospital. The principle of beneficence, on the other hand, argues that health practitioners should aim at helping their patients (Barry, 2012). This means that the doctor would have been right by choosing to lie to the patient that the daughter had survived the accident. This is because according to the doctor, this would prevent the worsening of the mental distress that the woman was suffering. In my opinion, however, telling the truth immediately in the presence of the children’s father would be helpful because it would reduce the woman’s mental disturbance. The principle of justice, which argues that practitioners should observe justice when completing their duties, would also support telling the truth (Gedge, & Waluchow, 2012). This is because this is the only decision that would be fair to the mother’s children. The last principle of non-maleficence argues that agents should avoid hurting others, would support the decision of lying to the patient. This is because the truth that the daughter had died would hurt the woman because it was unpleasant news. Morality principles disagree in some cases because of their differences in their points of view. In this case where the nurse told a lie, the principles of justice, beneficence, and autonomy would disagree because they would demand that the nurse tells the woman the truth that her daughter had died. However, the theory of non-maleficence would support the doctor’s decision of lying to the woman because this would avoid hurting her feelings and emotions. This would also avoid worsening the condition of the woman because she was still in pain. Reference Barry, V. E. (2012). Bioethics in a cultural context: Philosophy, religion, history, politics. Boston: Wadsworth. Gedge, E. A., & Waluchow, W. J. (2012). Readings in health care ethics. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Read More