Ethical consideration is a critical consideration in the nursing profession as stipulates the course of action a nurse can take in an ethical dilemma. David Vetter was born with a combination of immunodeficiencies and was supposed to live in a bubble-like plastic. The main reason was to offer protection from germs, which would make her sick. The boy died in 1984 when a bone marrow experiment was being done to find a cure for her condition. While the doctors were waiting for a cure, the boy was placed in a sterile environment and was isolated most of the time. The ethical problem that arises was on raising the boy in plastic isolation. The action was developmentally risky and ethically questionable. However, exposing the boy to the outside environment meant he would die. Even though the boy played and learned like the other children, he could not grow in isolation.
Overview and Background
David Vetter lived in Texas, and his condition became the focus of medical research and investigation. The disorder that he was suffering from was due to genetic mutation, which made the parent produce fewer immune cells to protect the child from infections. In a healthy immune system, the T and B cells, commonly referred to as the lymphocytes, protects the body against infections. People suffering from SCID like David Vetter do not have a critical immune system. The child was in isolation and had never been in contact with anyone (Haberman, 2015). However, there came a time when an ethical decision had to be made between letting the child out of the bubble or still make him stay inside the bubble. Individuals argue that it was an excellent idea to let David out of the bubble for the first time after his sister's bone marrow. However, being released from the bubble after the bone marrow procedure made her condition worse, which creates another side of the argument (Kever, 2014). Others stipulate that it was not a good idea and unethical to let the boy out of the bubble. The boy passed on two weeks after being released into the world for the first time. The ethical consideration in the case is whether the doctors' actions were the cause of the boy's death.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical Analysis
The ethical principle that was violated in a dilemma was veracity. The veracity principle refers to the accuracy, comprehension, and transition of information to make the patient understand the situation (Amer, 2019). In the case, the child was young and was not in a position to decide for himself on whether he should be released from the bubble or not. However, the parents of the child were available, and the responsibility would be transferred to them. The principle was violated because the child's parents did not receive clear information on what would happen to the boy after he has been released from the bubble. The doctors should have considered making the parents understand the actions' outcomes and let them make the decision. The principle that was not violated was that of beneficence. The principle stipulates that there is a need for health professionals to assist in preventing harm, removing harm, and promote good (American Nurses Association (ANA), n.p). Even after the boy's release from the bubble, she still was protected with another bubble over his head to facilitate breathing. That shows that the health professionals were protecting the boy from all forms of harm. They were keenly monitoring the health condition of the boy two weeks before his death.
Implications of Breaches in Ethical Conduct
The outcomes of the breach were severe, and the boy died two weeks later after being released. If the parents were informed of the dangers that were surrounding the actions the doctors were ready to take, they might have thought otherwise. Death was among the doctors' options that would have been releasing the boy from the bubble, but they failed to inform the parents. The child's parents suffered from public outrage as the boy's death results in emotional distress. There were films and movies created portraying the boy's image in the bubble, and that was disturbing to the parents. That creates another ethical issue of confidentiality. The doctors would have considered making the condition of the boy private unless the parents think otherwise. The ethical breach has led to changes in some of the policies and laws in the nursing profession. In 2008, a law was passed for the early screening of combined Immune deficiency for all unborn children. Early detection leads to a bone marrow infusion to the child before they are born, and more emphasis is on confidentiality.
Alternative Approaches to Ethically Challenging Circumstances
One of the things that would have been done differently is to ensure consent between the parents and the doctors. The parents would have been informed of every action the doctors were taking, and the boy would not have died. Isolation was the only solution to making the boy alive. They would have given the boy much longer time isolation after the bone marrow transplant before being released (Blakemore, 2020). Also, they should have considered confidentiality before exposing to the public the death of the child and his condition
Conclusion
David Vetter was born with a combined immunodeficiency condition that made him be isolated from other people. However, the doctor managed to get an alternative solution to the problem through a bone marrow transplant from the sister. After the transplant, they released the boy without informing the parents of the risk that were present. The body died two weeks later and raised an ethical question of whether the doctors did the right thing. The doctors' actions were a breach of the ethical principle of honesty. It is an alternative solution that would have informed the parents of the underlying risks and if they were okay with the action.
References
Amer, A. (2019). The ethics of veracity and it is importance in the medical ethics. Open Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 194-198.
American Nurses Association (ANA). Code of Ethics for Nurses. Retrieved from https://health.mo.gov/living/lpha/phnursing/ethics.php#:~:text=The%20ANA%20Code%20of%20Ethics,of%20its%20commitment%20to%20society. Accessed 28 October 2020.
Blakemore, E. (2020). David Vetter was ‘the boy in the bubble.’ His short life provided insights into how the rare disorder SCID works. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/david-vetter-was-the-boy-in-the-bubble-his-short-life-provided-insights-into-how-the-rare-disorder-scid-works/2020/01/24/b698e774-3d3a-11ea-baca-ed7ace0a3455_story.html%3foutputType=amp. Accessed 28 October 2020.
Haberman, C. (2015). ‘The boy in the bubble’ moved a world he couldn’t touch. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/us/the-boy-in-the-bubble-moved-a-world-he-couldnt-touch.amp.html. Accessed 28 October 2020.
Kever, J. (2014). The boy in the bubble: Examining the impact of a famous case. University of Houston. Retrieved from https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2014/March/articles0326BOYINBUBBLE.PHP. Accessed 28 October 2020.
