Across the board, organizational people recognize potential or existential dilemmas and make appropriate decisions to overcome them. In the health sector, care providers conjugate ethical decisions with principles of nonmaleficence, autonomy, justice, and beneficence to solve ethical dilemmas. Since care providers organize, oversee, and plan for activities in health care facilities, they play a pivotal role in ensuring patients receive quality and dedicated care. In situations with evident ethical and moral dilemmas, the care providers collaborate and communicate effectively with the patients to provide ethical and quality treatment.
Jenna and Chris Smith are having an organic parenthood perspective since Ana, who is five-days old, is their first-born child. They are not for vaccinating Ana believing that they have done adequate research on vaccines in which they found more harms than benefits of using vaccines (Case Study). They indicate that vaccines cause autism in children based on mommy-blogs they previously watched. After a prolonged conversation with the parents, Dr. Kerr outlines the benefits of vaccination and the related risks and harms of not being vaccinated. She indicates that reliable resources and statistics evidence a decrease in mortality rate among children for the past century due to vaccination. With the help of VAERS, she depicts how FDA and CDC encourage parents to report potential adverse reactions of vaccines as leeway for further investigation (Case Study). In line with the Case Study, Dr. Kerr informs Mr. and Mrs. Smith of the unavailability of vaccine that causes autism among children. Besides, she indicates the significance of the vaccine not only to Ana but also to other children who associate with Ana. For instance, vaccinating Ana prevents the development of communicable diseases among young, immunocompromised, and children with genetic conditions. However, regardless of the information that Dr. Kerr offers, the Smiths reject the vaccine. At that point, Dr. Kerr finds herself in a dilemma that requires her to respect the parents’ decision or fulfill her moral duty as Ana’s pediatrician.
The rejection of Ana’s vaccination by her parents induced an ethical dilemma to Dr. Kerr. As Ana’s pediatrician, Dr. Kerr believes in her entitlement to offer therapies that would prevent Ana from acquiring infections and disease through prophylaxis interventions (Case Study; Dubé & MacDonald, 2017). The parents inform the health care provider about their research on mommy-blogs about the negative effects of vaccination. After listening to the parents keenly, Dr. Kerr informs them about the misconceptions and controversies surrounding vaccines. She employs approved studies to support her information in which she strives to explain the benefits of the vaccine to Ana and other children that associate with Ana. Conversely, the parents heed no advice believing that their child should not engage in any vaccination process. Since the care provider understands the significance of childhood immunization to an individual’s immunity, she faces an ethical dilemma due to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s standpoint.
Order this paper