Ethical Principles Are Universal Rules Of Conduct

Ethical Principles Are Universal Rules Of Conduct

Ethical principles serve as universal rules of conduct, grounded in ethical theories that help identify actions, motives, and intentions worthy of recognition and respect (Pozgar, 2016, p.39). In complex medical scenarios, such as caring for an unborn child diagnosed with anencephaly, these principles—justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and beneficence—are critical in guiding decision-making processes. Justice involves fairness in distributing benefits and risks (Pozgar, 2016, p.41), demanding equitable treatment for both mother and fetus while considering their respective needs. Nonmaleficence emphasizes avoiding harm, which in this context extends to minimizing suffering for the baby and emotional distress to the mother (Pozgar, 2016, p.40). Autonomy recognizes the patient's right to make informed decisions about their care, including the mother’s right to choose the course of treatment despite medical advisories. Beneficence underscores acting in the best interest of both patients, providing compassion and support during a profoundly emotional time.

In the case of a fetus with anencephaly, prognosis is grim, with very rare instances of survival beyond infancy (Foreman, 1999). This information can help parents understand the severity of the condition without giving false hope. Conveying statistical data about outcomes—including the fact that only about 5% of affected infants survive beyond six days (HRF, 2019)—can inform parental decision-making, though it must be balanced with cultural and religious considerations. The mother’s emotional state—initial shock, grief, and hope—must be acknowledged with sensitivity, ensuring she comprehends the diagnosis and the limited benefits of prolonging life in such cases.

Paper For Above instruction

When confronting cases involving terminal or non-viable conditions, healthcare providers are faced with ethical dilemmas that require careful application of core principles. The case of an unborn fetus diagnosed with anencephaly exemplifies the tension between respecting parental autonomy and adhering to principles that promote beneficence and nonmaleficence. From an ethical perspective, providers must balance respecting the mother's rights to make decisions about her pregnancy and potential neonatal care with medical realities that point to a poor prognosis.

The principle of justice also plays a vital role in this context. Fair resource allocation necessitates that care provided is appropriate to the medical condition and prognosis, particularly given the high costs and minimal benefits associated with intensive interventions in such cases. For instance, attempts to prolong life via extraordinary measures may impose significant financial burdens on families, often without meaningful benefits for the infant, who experiences a lack of brain development typical in anencephaly (Machado, Martinez & Barini, 2012). Accordingly, healthcare teams must communicate transparently about the expected outcomes, emphasizing that the intervention's primary aim should be comfort and dignity rather than futile prolongation of life.

Respecting the mother's autonomy involves providing comprehensive, clear, and compassionate information about the diagnosis, prognosis, and options, including palliative and supportive care. This includes discussing the natural course of anencephaly, highlighting that the lack of a cerebral cortex precludes consciousness and pain perception, and that life support measures may only prolong suffering (Foreman, 1999). It is essential that healthcare providers support the mother emotionally, acknowledging her hopes and beliefs while guiding her with scientifically accurate information. This aligns with beneficence, which requires acting in ways that genuinely serve the patient's best interests, including psychosocial support and spiritual comfort, especially when medical intervention cannot alter the outcome.

Legal precedents reinforce the importance of respecting parental rights, as illustrated in cases where courts have upheld the mother's authority to refuse treatment, even for infants with severe anomalies (Greenhouse, 1993). Such judgments emphasize that medical teams must avoid imposing treatment against parental wishes unless mandated by law or when intervention is necessary to prevent significant harm or neglect. The ethical challenge is ensuring that decisions are made in a manner that respects rights without compromising care quality or dignity. For example, hospital policies should support providing comfort measures and respecting parents’ cultural and religious values, all while maintaining professional and ethical standards.

Furthermore, an ethical consultation involves considering the resources involved and their proportionality to the expected benefit. Because the likelihood of survival is minimal and the quality of life exceedingly poor, continuous intensive care is ethically unjustified, barring compelling parental wishes aligned with the child's best interests (HRF, 2014). Communication strategies include presenting factual data empathetically, clarifying the natural disease course, and supporting family-centered decisions. Ensuring that the mother feels heard and understood fosters trust and facilitates ethical decision-making that honors her rights and the infant's dignity.

In conclusion, applying core ethical principles to cases of severe fetal anomalies like anencephaly necessitates a delicate balance between respecting maternal autonomy, avoiding unnecessary harm, promoting beneficence through comfort care, and ensuring justice in resource utilization. Healthcare providers must navigate these challenges with compassion, transparency, and professionalism, always prioritizing the dignity and well-being of both mother and infant. Recognizing the limits of medical intervention in such circumstances underscores the importance of supportive, palliative approaches that honor the intrinsic worth of the individual, even in the face of inevitable loss.

References

• Foreman, M. W. (1999). Christianity & bioethics: Confronting clinical issues. College Press Publishing Company.
• Greenhouse, L. (1993). Hospital appeals ruling on treating baby born with most of brain gone. The New York Times.
• Machado, I. N., Martinez, S. D., & Barini, R. (2012). Anencephaly: do the pregnancy and maternal characteristics impact the pregnancy outcome? ISRN Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2012, 127490.
• Morhaim, D. K., & Pollack, K. M. (2013). End-of-life care issues: A personal, economic, public policy, and public health crisis. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), e8–e10.
• Healthcare Research Funding (HRF). (2014). Anencephaly life expectancy. Retrieved from https://www.hrf.com/anencephaly-life-expectancy
• Pozgar, G. D., & Santucci, N. M. (2016). Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration (12th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Additional scholarly articles and bioethics literature corresponding to the principles discussed would be cited here.