Ethics Of Vaccination 538527

Ethics Vaccination

This case involves two parents, Jenna and Smith, of Ana, a five-year-old girl who refuse vaccination because they intend to raise her naturally. Dr. Kerr, a medical practitioner, faces an ethical dilemma between respecting the parents' personal beliefs and her obligation to ensure the child's health and safety. Despite her efforts to educate Jenna and Smith about the importance of vaccination, they maintain their stance. Dr. Kerr must navigate her professional responsibilities, including respecting patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, while considering the best interest of Ana.

The core ethical problem is whether Dr. Kerr should vaccinate Ana against her parents' wishes. The consequences of her decision involve her professional duty and the child's wellbeing. She must balance respecting parental rights with her obligation to protect the child's health and prevent disease outbreaks. The ethical decision-making model emphasizes moral awareness, moral judgment, and moral intention. Dr. Kerr needs to evaluate the facts, consider her ethical principles, and determine the course of action that minimizes harm and promotes beneficence.

Paper For Above instruction

Ethical challenges in pediatric vaccination often present complex dilemmas where the rights of parents conflict with the health responsibilities of medical professionals. In this case, Jenna and Smith's decision to refuse vaccination for Ana stems from their personal values and belief in natural upbringing. This scenario encapsulates the core principles of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

Parents generally have the right to make healthcare decisions for their children, rooted in the principle of autonomy. However, this autonomy is limited when it compromises the child's best interests or public health. In the context of vaccinations, ethical debates revolve around balancing respect for parental choices with societal responsibilities to prevent communicable diseases. Dr. Kerr, as a healthcare provider, is bound to uphold these principles while respecting the family's beliefs.

The principle of beneficence obligates healthcare professionals to promote the well-being of their patients. Vaccination is a proven public health intervention that prevents severe diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, and polio. Conversely, non-maleficence, the duty to do no harm, supports vaccination by preventing the child from contracting preventable illnesses. These principles justify the physician's role in advocating for immunization, especially given the potential risks to Ana without vaccination.

Justice, in the context of healthcare ethics, emphasizes fair distribution of resources and equitable treatment. It also involves societal responsibilities to protect vulnerable populations through herd immunity. When parents refuse vaccination, it threatens community health and can lead to outbreaks, thus challenging the fairness of individual choices impacting public safety.

Effective communication is crucial in resolving ethical dilemmas. Dr. Kerr employed interpersonal skills, providing detailed information, engaging in active listening, and addressing misconceptions. Using evidence-based data and credible sources, she tried to persuade the parents by emphasizing vaccination benefits and safety measures. Such communication strategies foster trust and help parents make informed decisions, although some may remain resistant due to misinformation, lifestyle beliefs, or distrust in medical authorities.

The influence of social factors, particularly misinformation from online sources, significantly contributes to vaccine hesitancy. As noted by Leung and Ho (2020), social norms and digital media shape individual beliefs and attitudes towards health interventions. Smith's reliance on a blog claiming vaccines cause autism exemplifies how misinformation exacerbates ethical conflicts for healthcare providers.

From an ethical standpoint, Dr. Kerr’s dilemma is compounded by her professional obligation to respect parental autonomy versus her duty to protect child welfare. The ethical principle of beneficence supports vaccinating to promote Ana's health and prevent potential harm. Simultaneously, respecting the parents' decision aligns with respecting family autonomy, but only to the extent that it does not significantly harm the child's health or pose a threat to public safety.

The Four Principles approach in biomedical ethics offers a valuable framework for making this decision. Applying beneficence and non-maleficence supports vaccination, as the benefits vastly outweigh the small risks involved. Justice mandates that Ana, as a member of society, has the right to receive care that promotes her health, regardless of parental preferences motivated by personal beliefs.

In resolving this ethical issue, healthcare providers might pursue various strategies. First, they should continue providing clear, empathetic communication, emphasizing vaccine safety and efficacy, supported by reputable scientific evidence. Second, engaging in shared decision-making allows parents to voice concerns, process information, and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution whenever possible. Third, when refusal persists, ethically, health professionals may need to adhere to public health policies or legal statutes that permit vaccination in cases where the child's health is at risk, even without parental consent, such as in the case of vaccination mandates.

Legal frameworks vary but often support vaccination to protect children and society from preventable disease outbreaks. In some regions, non-medical vaccine exemptions are increasingly restricted to uphold public health. Accordingly, Dr. Kerr must consider legal obligations alongside ethical principles, potentially advocating for policies that prioritize child and community health without infringing excessively on personal freedoms.

In conclusion, the ethical dilemma faced by Dr. Kerr highlights the need for a balanced approach that respects parental rights while ensuring the child's health and safety. Employing the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy, alongside effective communication and legal considerations, provides a comprehensive framework for navigating such complex issues. Ultimately, vaccination remains a critical component of public health, and healthcare professionals must advocate for interventions that protect both individual and societal welfare.

References

• Leung, T., & Ho, J. C. (2020). Social responsibility and ethics in health care. Primary Care Revisited.
• Hubbard, R., & Greenblum, J. (2019). Parental decision making: The best interest principle, child autonomy, and reasonableness. HEC Forum, 31(3), 263-280.
• Steyn, E., & Edge, J. (2019). Ethical considerations in global surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 106(2), e17–e19.
• Omer, S. B., Salmon, D. A., Orenstein, W. A., deHart, M. P., & Halsey, N. (2019). Vaccine refusal, mandatory vaccination, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(19), 1981-1988.
• World Health Organization. (2019). Immunization Coverage. Geneva: WHO.
• Jansen, V. A., & Stollenwerk, N. (2018). Challenges in vaccine hesitancy and vaccination policies. Vaccine, 36(43), 6234-6241.
• Caplan, A. (2017). When is “public health” just empty rhetoric? The case of vaccination mandates. The Milbank Quarterly, 95(4), 840-860.
• Ruel, B. (2018). Ethical challenges in vaccination policies: Balancing community rights and individual choice. Bioethics, 32(6), 367-375.
• German, R. R., et al. (2018). Mandatory vaccination—The path forward. Vaccine, 36(4), 461-464.
• Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2016). Public Health Law: Power, duty, restraint. University of California Press.