People have embraced moral values that guide and direct their actions and behavior in society. However, ethical rules and values are not absolute, and people often have a code that is directly contrary to or against what others know. In our daily lives, it is common to face situations and challenges that are directly against our ethical beliefs and values. Physicians and other healthcare workers are in their daily work presented specific issues that amount to moral and ethical dilemmas. In the case, we see several conflicting values between the healthcare team and the parents of a six-year-old child. By using the ethical theories and principles learned in this class, we can understand the dilemma faced by the physician and healthcare workers in this case.
In this case, there is a conflict in ethics between the physician, healthcare staff, and the parents of the sick child. A battle in ethics occurs when one person’s right actions are considered wrong by the other ( Cottone, 2014) . In this case, the parent's Christian values require that the child not be given medical treatment. On the other hand, the physician's moral values and accepted code of conduct are that the child should be given medication for the diagnosed disease to prevent deterioration and save the life of the child. However, based on the principle of autonomy, a patient has personal liberty to decide the course of treatment ( Cottone, 2014) . Accordingly, consent is required from parents for healthcare practitioners to provide medication to minors. Based on the principle of autonomy, the physician and the hospital were wrong in delivering care to the child without the consent of the parents.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another important principle that should be considered in this case is that of consequentialism. According to the policy of consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine whether it is judged as right or wrong ( Ahlstrom-Vij & Dunn, 2014) . Accordingly, an act is assessed in terms of the amount of good or evil that it bring about. The principle consequentialism is mainly judged based on utility, which promotes the most significant general product of most people ( Ahlstrom-Vij & Dunn, 2014) . Based on this principle, the physician was right in treating the six-year-old off meningitis as their actions were meant for more good than evil. Therefore the healthcare professionals were justified in treating the child and relieving her signs of the disease.
Another important principle, in this case, is that of nonmaleficence. The law of nonmaleficence requires that healthcare practitioners actively eliminate and prevent harm where possible ( Taylor, 2013) . While drugs and other medical procedures often have secondary effects on patients, the principle is still applicable. The healthcare practitioner is required to consider other options for eliminating diseases and injuries on the child. In the case, there exist none other alternative measures to reduce meningitis in children, especially at this level of the disease. Consequently, the physician was justified to provide healthcare to the patient. However, this principle is supposed to be applied with, including that of consequentialism.
As seen, it is apparent that there is an ethical problem in the case with the coinciding of the different moral values by the people involved. The physician finds himself in an ethical dilemma on which ethical principle to follow and which they will disobey to act responsibly. Based on the principles learned in class, this case presents a moral dilemma to the physician and other healthcare providers. Most importantly, the principle of autonomy holds the physician at conflict with the parents of the suffering child. However, as a medical officer, the physician is legally and morally obligated to provide help to the suffering child and to consider the consequences of their decision to act or not to act in this scenario. As the judge listens and decides the case, he should, therefore, consider the implications of all the principles and theories. Also, he should consider the legal and moral obligation of both the physician and the other healthcare practitioners and that of parents regarding the provision of healthcare to the minor.
References
Ahlstrom-Vij, K., & Dunn, J., (2014). A defense of epistemic consequentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly , 64 (257), 541-551.
Cottone, R. R., (2014). On replacing the ethical principle of autonomy with an ethical principle of accordance. Counseling and Values , 59 (2), 238-248.
Taylor, R. M., (2013). Ethical principles and concepts in medicine. In Handbook of clinical neurology (Vol. 118, pp. 1-9). Elsevier.
