Create A Possible Ethical Dilemma

Create A Possible Ethical Dil

Develop a hypothetical ethical dilemma related to your chosen field. Apply the 7 Step Decision Making Model to analyze and resolve the dilemma, including a summary of the situation and answers to each of the seven steps: (1) determine the facts; (2) define the ethical issue; (3) identify principles, rules, and values; (4) specify alternatives; (5) compare values and alternatives; (6) assess consequences; and (7) make a decision.

Paper For Above instruction

Ethical dilemmas are commonplace in many professional fields, requiring careful analysis and sound decision-making to uphold integrity and ethical standards. This paper presents a hypothetical ethical dilemma encountered by a medical assistant, along with a detailed application of the 7 Step Decision Making Model to resolve it ethically.

The chosen scenario involves a medical assistant working in a busy outpatient clinic. The assistant's supervisor routinely asks them to perform procedures for which they have not received formal training, citing the urgency of patient care and staff shortages. This situation presents a clear ethical dilemma: does the medical assistant comply with the supervisor’s requests, potentially risking patient safety and professional integrity, or refuse, risking job security and team cohesion? These conflicting considerations necessitate a structured ethical analysis to arrive at a responsible and ethically justifiable course of action.

Applying the 7 Step Decision Making Model involves systematically evaluating the facts, ethical issues, principles, options, and consequences associated with this dilemma. In the first step, the medical assistant must gather facts—identifying involved parties (supervisor, patients, colleagues), understanding institutional policies, and considering the urgency of patient needs. The location is a healthcare setting, and timing can influence decision sensitivity, especially in emergency scenarios.

Second, the ethical issue centers on professionalism, patient safety, and honesty. Is it a matter of doing no harm (non-maleficence), maintaining professional integrity, or adhering to regulatory standards? The dilemma hinges on whether adhering strictly to training requirements should take precedence over expedient patient care in urgent situations.

Third, core principles such as beneficence (acting in patients' best interests), non-maleficence, integrity, and respect for professional boundaries inform the analysis. The assistant must weigh these values against considerations of competence, safety, and organizational loyalty.

The fourth step involves generating alternatives: (a) perform the procedures without proper training, risking harm; (b) refuse to perform procedures outside training, risking disciplinary action; (c) seek supervision or clarification; or (d) escalate concerns to higher authorities. Each alternative carries ethical implications requiring further analysis.

Fifth, comparing the alternatives involves analyzing how each aligns with core principles. Performing untrained procedures conflicts with safety and integrity but might be justified if it solely involves minor tasks and immediate patient benefit. Conversely, refusing might violate organizational policies or compromise patient care in emergencies.

Sixth, assessing consequences entails considering short-term benefits like quick patient care versus long-term harm, including liability, loss of professional credibility, or harm to patients. The potential for patient injury if untrained procedures are performed underscores the importance of safety and competence over expediency.

Finally, the decision involves selecting actions aligned with ethical principles. In this case, the most responsible course would involve communicating concerns clearly to supervisors, offering alternatives such as referring procedures to trained personnel, and advocating for proper training or protocols. A double-check ensures the decision respects patient safety, professional integrity, and organizational policies.

This structured approach fosters ethically sound decisions that uphold the core values of the healthcare profession, emphasizing the importance of honesty, competence, and patient safety. Such frameworks can be adapted across various fields to resolve complex ethical dilemmas systematically and responsibly.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. HarperOne.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). Ethical Dilemmas in Research. Oxford University Press.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Business Ethics: A Text and Cases (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Thiroux, J. P., & Krasemann, K. W. (2017). Ethics: Theory and Practice (11th ed.). Pearson.
• Turiel, E. (2018). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge University Press.
• Umbreit, R. K. (2004). Ethical decision making in health care. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Wicks, P. G., & Urquhart, C. (2017). Decision Making in Professional Ethics. Routledge.
• Young, J. W. (2012). Ethical Dilemmas in Healthcare: A Guide for Clinical Practice. Springer Publishing.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2018). Ethical Dilemmas and Decision-Making. Routledge.