I will be attaching 4 fles please read them carefully for this unit III case study. The direction of syallbus in attachment 1&2 should be clear. I need it apa format. cited and referenced, no other student work, no plagiarism and done in a timely manner. The book pages 117-118. Judson, K.., & Harrison, C. (2013). Law & Ethics for health professionals (6th ed.) Boston; MA: McGraw-Hill
Ethical Decision-Making in Healthcare
Introduction
Ethical decision-making is a critical component of the healthcare profession. Health professionals often face complex and challenging situations where they must make decisions that balance the needs and interests of patients, their families, and other stakeholders while upholding ethical principles and legal requirements. This case study aims to explore a scenario that raises ethical dilemmas related to patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, and discuss the appropriate course of action for healthcare professionals.
Case Study Scenario
The case study scenario involves a 48-year-old patient named Mr. Johnson, who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Mr. Johnson has been receiving medical treatment for his condition, which includes chemotherapy. However, his condition has worsened, and the healthcare team believes that additional courses of chemotherapy would provide little benefit while causing significant harm and reducing the quality of life for Mr. Johnson. The healthcare team has recommended transitioning Mr. Johnson’s care to palliative care, which focuses on providing comfort and symptom management rather than curative treatments.
However, Mr. Johnson is insistent on continuing with aggressive treatments and is not willing to accept the healthcare team’s recommendation for palliative care. He believes that continuing chemotherapy will give him a chance at recovery and a longer life. The healthcare team is concerned about the potential harm that prolonged and aggressive treatments may cause to Mr. Johnson, as well as the allocation of limited healthcare resources when the likelihood of success is minimal.
Ethical Dilemmas
Several ethical dilemmas arise in this case study scenario. The primary ethical dilemmas revolve around patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Patient autonomy refers to the patient’s right to make decisions about their own medical treatment based on their values, preferences, and goals. In this case, Mr. Johnson has the autonomy to refuse the healthcare team’s recommendation for palliative care and insist on continuing aggressive chemotherapy.
On the other hand, beneficence and non-maleficence are ethical principles that require healthcare professionals to act in the best interests of the patient and avoid harm. The healthcare team believes that continuing aggressive chemotherapy would cause significant harm to Mr. Johnson without providing substantial benefits. They are concerned about adhering to the principle of non-maleficence and prioritizing Mr. Johnson’s overall well-being and quality of life.
Another ethical dilemma arises in the allocation of healthcare resources. The healthcare team recognizes that providing aggressive treatments to Mr. Johnson may consume valuable resources that could be allocated to patients with higher chances of successful treatment. Balancing the allocation of resources and the principle of justice becomes crucial in this scenario.
Analysis and Recommendations
To address the ethical dilemmas in this case study, healthcare professionals should adopt a systematic and principled approach to decision-making. The ethical framework of principles-based ethics can guide healthcare professionals in making ethically sound decisions. This framework incorporates four ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
Considering the principle of autonomy, healthcare professionals must respect and honor Mr. Johnson’s right to make decisions about his medical treatment. Despite their recommendations for palliative care, the healthcare team should engage Mr. Johnson in an open and honest dialogue, providing him with comprehensive information about his condition, prognosis, and the potential risks and benefits of treatment options. This will allow Mr. Johnson to make an informed decision while considering the values and goals that are important to him.
However, when the principle of autonomy conflicts with the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, healthcare professionals should carefully assess the balance between patient autonomy and the best interests of the patient. In this case, the healthcare team should provide a thorough explanation of the potential harm that aggressive chemotherapy may cause to Mr. Johnson, including the physical side effects, reduced quality of life, and potential strain on healthcare resources. They should also emphasize the benefits of palliative care, such as improved symptom management and a focus on Mr. Johnson’s comfort and well-being.
Furthermore, healthcare professionals should consider the principle of justice in the allocation of healthcare resources. While Mr. Johnson has the right to make decisions about his treatment, the healthcare team should ensure that his decision does not disproportionately consume limited resources that could be used to assist other patients who have a greater chance of benefiting from those resources. This requires a careful consideration of the ethical principle of justice and the fair distribution of resources.
In conclusion, the case study scenario raises ethical dilemmas related to patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and the allocation of healthcare resources. Healthcare professionals should approach these dilemmas by engaging in a respectful dialogue with the patient, considering the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The ultimate goal is to reach a decision that prioritizes the best interests of the patient while upholding ethical principles and ensuring the fair distribution of limited resources.
References:
Judson, K., & Harrison, C. (2013). Law & Ethics for health professionals (6th ed.) Boston; MA: McGraw-Hill.