Introduction

The subjects of morality encompass significant forms of complexity in different healthcare settings. Physicians, for instance, deal with or in some situations are forced to make diverse forms of moral choices, which tend to vary depending on the type of medical complication despite of the treatment outlook. The diversity of the encompassed cases especially in the clinical industry requires vital principles to guide decision making for substantial conclusions. Therefore, clinicians oblige particular morally purposed guidelines, which are usually used to resolve with notions of uncertainty and conflict owing to the differences of reasoning. The commonly accepted aspect of the presumed guidelines’ highlights the need to facilitate compliance among the pious, nonreligious and other people characterizing differing ethics. As a result, the commonly acknowledged guidelines act as powerful tools of deterring misunderstandings and conflicts that accrue from the variables of medical issues and other ethical considerations in clinical fields. Significantly, Beauchamp and Childress introduced the philosophy of certain principles in relation to Medical Ethics, which are habitually used to control moral issues in clinical fields. Arguably, if well applied, the principles have the ability of validating the determination of a physician’s moral responsibility on the subject of clinical situations.

Question 2

The standards that work in association with medical ethics in the contemporary health care highlight the need for service providers to make use of the value of reasoning when on duty. The codes established by Beauchamp and Childress stand as the principles of Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence, and Non-maleficence.  Intuitively, each principle induces particular impacts on medical ethics in accordance with the nature of a clinical situation although the principles tend underline similar concerns regarding ethical issues in medicine. Significantly, the primary intent of applying the principles on all medical cases is to provide ensure that decision making exemplifies highest levels of medical benefits for patients. However, the principles may be applied in different scenarios to protect other people’s rights in the line of duty. For instance, they may be used to protect employees from actions that have a propensity of violating their rights.

The case at stake raises a variety of ethical issues including respect, confidentiality or privacy, care, consent, competency (the idea of work-related experience), and reconciliation which infer the essence brought up by the four general principles. However, responsibility can be critiqued as the pervasive ethical issues throughout the case. This implies that the codes on Respect for Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence, and Non-maleficence are well founded through the happening of the case. The case brings on table a situation whereby a nurse (Alex Wubbels) was arrested after she stopped a police officer from drawing blood out of a patient while in coma. Suddenly, the police officer (Jeff Payne) was fired off his duty as a consequence for the arrest of the nurse. Significantly, the issues raised in the case have an apparent association with the principles of Medical Ethics.

The principle of Autonomy

Respect for autonomy is a vital element of ethics that is commonly used in medical fields to resolve conflicts on moral considerations. It conceptualizes the need for treating patients as independent agents. More so, the principle expects medical practitioners to ensure that people with limited senses for self-sufficiency are protected against acts of defiance in accordance with the moral principles. Therefore, autonomy requires the answerable parties to ensure that people’s sovereignty is acknowledged in all circumstances whereas people with weakened autonomy are well protected. Esteem for independence elaborates the need to value one’s opinions and at the same time avoiding to not hindering the achievement of one’s interests. However, the principle considers the fact that not every individual has the capability for self-determination owing to a variety of reasons. For instance, incapability for autonomy may be a result of illness or mental disability. As a result, the liable bodies need to ensure that autonomy of the ill or mentally disabled is protected in ways that abide by moral expectations within that particular setting. The aspects of care and respect are significantly articulated in the case in regards to the principle of autonomy.  For instance, both the nurse and the police had the responsibility of making determinations, preferably, of care to propose the best interests for the patient who lacked the capability for self-determination. Also, the issues concur with the guidelines of autonomy considering that it underlines the need for protecting the independency of others through ways that value their status.  .

Beneficence

Under this principle, in association with medical ethics, the public should be treated ethically through ways that honor their moral considerations. Nevertheless, like in this case, the made decisions should have acted to protect patient personality from events that could impact their welfare negatively.  Moreover, the rule of beneficence calls for other complimentary and viable efforts of securing the wellbeing of those affected (the patients). It extensively brings to account the essence of compassion, which often exceeds the philosophy of strict obligation. The main idea behind the principle exemplifies the importance of curbing chances for events that may comprise harmful effects on others.  It as well encourages the development and application of competent determinations, which in one way or another may facilitate the likelihood of maximum patient benefits within a situation.  Without hesitation, the idea that tends to diminish chances for potential damage has been a vital rule of medical ethics in all healthcare scenarios. This implies that an individual has to gather the relevant information regarding harmful practices for patient protection although the process may pretense the involved party, for example, the physicians to momentous risks. However, physicians are required to uphold decisions that favor the interests of their patients regardless of the threats that might follow their stand towards a complication. On the other hand, competency stands out as a crucial element of ethical considerations that encounter a lot of complexity in various orientations. Significantly, the commonly accepted concept of beneficence illustrates that everyone ought to prioritize one’s occupational competency prior putting to effect actions of criticism. In reference the case at hand, the conflicting bodies had the liability to put into consideration the ethical guidelines within the respective occupations preceding their actions.

The principle of justice

Justice is the equal distribution of resources and services, which should also be included in the healthcare sector. Each individual in the society has got the right to better treatment in which it applies regardless of his or her bodily status in the society. The principle of justice is an important incentive towards the provision of better health care services so that the demands of individuals   are fairy met. For instance, it requires individuals in the health sector as well as the society in general to handle cases fairly through ways that deter instances of prejudice. However, even though people can be treated equally, they can also be treated unjustly. Treatment requires equal respect to individuals regardless the outlook of a situation. For example, the act of friendship, presentation of concern to the patient and good attitude should be upheld by each attendant. Medical practitioners, for instance, should guarantee that they put the medical needs of their patients into consideration whenever they are in the line of duty. Justice prevails when the laws embarking patient rights are not violated under any circumstances. The principle of justice, moreover, pretends that judgment of employee actions in any situation should follow the key ethical guidelines. Importantly, the perceptions behind the concept of informed consent in relation to justice communicate the ethical issues that revolve around the aspect of responsibility as stipulated by the case. It denotes that employers are ethically responsible for ensuring that their employees have the essential information, that is, the rules and regulations while on duty in pursuit for justice. However, the principle delivers that employees have the duty of ensuring that the value of consent is properly practiced to enhance chances for justice.

Non-maleficence

The principle of non– maleficence preface that the patient should be protected from any harm or injury while under treatment. Any doings that may oblige the patient to harm should be considered as a serious offence and thus the need for physicians to take indispensable action. The principle does not condone incompetence in the medical profession, rather it intends to evade or curtail the risk of harm to the patient. Conversely, medical mistakes may take place during the process of treatment, but the principle requires that there should be committed health care professionals who will ensure that the patient is protected from any harm. A person who violates the principle of non maleficence clearly shows that he or she is not morally upright and thus should not be part of health care sector. Non maleficence principle is the basic principle that shows the morality of an individual. It is clear that some situations may expose one to a complex circumstance considering that reluctant considerations may in due course harm the patient or rather deter the principle of non-maleficence among the involved teams. While in such circumstances, one is expected to make decisions that suggest positive impacts to the patient. The case develops that aspects of confidentiality and reconciliation should be instilled in medical situations to facilitate the protection of ethical standards. Considering that medical ethics stipulate that privacy should be a core theme within health care, care providers should embark the notion of protection when determining their stance on a situation. Like in this case, both parties had the mandate to impose their ethical basis regarding patient protection before exercising their obligations. Therefore, the standards of non maleficence exemplify that the nurse and the police officer were expected to fully exercise respective ethical jurisdictions to develop interests that propose chances for patient protection.   

Question 3

Suggestible, the adequacy of harmonizing intents should be put into consideration when offering judgment concerning the validity of determinations to a health situation. This rectifies that an opinion should be rested on a determination that supports different moral considerations for an ethical justification to be achieved. With reference to the outlook of the conflicting case between a nurse and a police officer, justification of ethical dilemmas in medicine need to be in line with the standards of the comprehensive structure of medical ethics. Evidently, the article admits that both parties, that is, the nurse and the police officer had substantial basis for their actions regarding the medical situation. However, Beauchamp and Childress’s opinions on the “Principles of Biomedical Ethics” exemplify that competing benefits should be used to validate judgments in every situation. The case thus presents a lot of confusion concerning the judgment on the ethical issues portrayed by the stand of the nurse and officer towards the patient.  Significantly, in this case, I contend that a judgment should be in favor of the determination that demonstrates adequate reasons regarding the values of medical ethics. Basing on the validity potentiality of the determinations between the nurse and the officer to patient interests; I argue that the nurse’s arrest was against the expectations of the general principles of Medical Ethics. Also, I contend the officer’s stand to arresting the nurse by arguing that the nurse was responding to her commitment in accordance with the codes of medical ethics.

Beauchamp and Childress impose that there exist other imperative rules that are aligned with the principles of medical ethics, which in due course exemplify the subject of responsibility. This means that activities that may facilitate disclosure of a patient’s privacy should not be allowed within the health care. Medical practitioners, for example, nurses have the mandate to deny access to any individual other than medical experts within the healthcare industry to conduct any sort of assessment on a patient. In response to the case, I aver that the nurse (Alex Wubbels) had the right of declaring her compliance to protecting medical ethics while maintaining the patient’s privacy. Respect for other people’s autonomy denotes the need for maintaining confidentiality in regards to aspects such as declaration of information on a patient’s medical status. This thus shows that the nurse’s decision was right considering that she was protecting the patient from harm. This position is convincing because the values of non-maleficence allows physicians to involve the aspects of competency when making clinical decisions. Additionally, it is commonly accepted that a lot of medical information can be disclosed through some examinations including blood examinations. As a result, I agree that physicians, like in this case, the nurse had the obligation to stop the police attempt to draw blood from the patient who lacked senses for self determining at the moment.

The code of beneficence tends to motivate professionals (medical practitioners) to perform their duties in ways that might better other people’s lives. This argument is morally acceptable since it unfolds the importance for clinicians to make decisions that are in line with the ethical aspirations of patients within the healthcare landscape. It further infers that clinicians should always abide by the medical ethics including rules and regulations while on duty for patient interests. Therefore, I aver that clinicians have the accountability to prevent and deter chances for harmful acts whilst promoting the likelihood for excellence regardless the appearance of a situation. I therefore contend that practitioners in a health care facility have the priority of putting into practice their judgments so long as the decisions underline the attribute of care for patients.

Also, I agree that the nurse’s arrest violated the vital considerations including the rule of justice in regards to medical ethics. I argue that Wubbels’s determination was intended to protect the rights of the patient from being violated. Wubbels upholds the rights of privacy of the patient from an unpredictable activity without his conscious. Additionally, the code of justice in the medical sector suggests that an employee in the sector has the right to function his or her stipulated work in accordance with the rules and regulations given. Wubbels clearly shows that she respected the hospital policy by standing firm on her grounds even after being threatened by the police officer. An employee should not be compromised or threatened to perform a specific task that is not included in the operational guidelines. For that reason, I challenge the officer’s action of arresting the nurse considering that by the code of justice, employees should be allowed to perform their duties without intimidation. Thus, it is the duty of employees to ensure that they are well informed on the rules and regulations guiding them, just like the way Wubbels was properly informed on the policies of the hospital.

Question 4

Objection

As specified in the case, both the nurse and the police defined valuable basis for their positions which complexes the validity of a particular moral judgment.

It is important to understand that Payne was a certified phlebotomists’ who wanted to draw blood from the patient in order to execute his investigation. It is clearly asserted  that the patient was a semi truck driver  who was crushed by a car fleeing the Uttah highway patrol, thus  Payne just wanted to clear him from any wrong doing in the hurtle. Alex Wubbel could not have resisted Payne from withdrawing blood since she simply understood that he was a police officer who was on his line of duty maintaining law and order. Moreover, it was not right to suspend Payne since he was not informed of the changed policies at the hospital at the moment, which barred him from withdrawing blood without the consent of the patient or without having a warrant. We clearly see that Payne was performing with the best interest of clearing the patient from any wrong doing, (the principle of beneficence) only to find himself at an awkward position of even being suspended from his job. It is crucial to note that both the police and the nurse work to save the lives of people, so the incident where Alex Wubbels deterred Payne from executing his work seemed as discomfiture to him. Payne had the right to justify his actions without being compromised by his authorities since his actions were not of any bad intentions, but it was for the well being of the patient. Therefore, there should have been a good moral judgment to show that really Payne was not right to arrest Alex Wubbels. It would have been a wise move if the  police department and the hospital management could come up with a concert where there shall be a better conformity between the physicians and the police officers since mostly their job tend to merge in most of the cases. The fact that Payne was suspended for arresting Alex, does not mean that he did a contrary moral action, since in his conscious mind he knew that what he was doing was right and lawful at the moment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

s