Tr Fl 1 Utbt Tqtsmtt Unit Lll Assessment In Instruction

6tr Fl 1 Utbt Tqtsmtt Unit Lll Assessmentassessme Nt I Nstructi

Review all related directions before starting on any part of the assignment. Submit each component before its respective due date/time. The final case analysis paper is 4-5 pages in APA format, including a title page, running head, and reference page. The paper focuses on an ethical dilemma witnessed in nursing practice, analyzing the ethical issue involved. Each section of the provided template must be addressed in one to two paragraphs, with scholarly explanations supporting responses and discussions. The sections include gathering data and identifying conflicting moral claims, identifying stakeholders, determining moral perspectives, discussing desired outcomes, listing options, acting on a choice, evaluating outcomes, and identifying guiding ethical principles and relevant ANA Code sections. The paper should demonstrate organized, clear writing with proper grammar, spelling, and APA formatting, including citations. Draft submissions are unlimited, but the similarity index must be below 35%. The final submission must be uploaded to the specified course portal before the due date, with only one attempt allowed. Late or multiple submissions are not accepted.

Paper For Above instruction

In the complex realm of nursing practice, ethical dilemmas frequently arise that challenge healthcare professionals to act in ways that uphold foundational moral principles while navigating competing interests. An ethical dilemma occurs when there are conflicting duties, obligations, or values, making it difficult to determine the most appropriate course of action. Addressing such dilemmas requires meticulous analysis, consideration of stakeholders, an understanding of moral development stages, and adherence to ethical frameworks, including the American Nurses Association (ANA) Code of Ethics. This paper explores an ethical case witnessed during clinical practice, analyzing the core issues and determining the most ethical response based on established principles.

1. Gathering Data and Identifying Conflicting Moral Claims

The chosen case involves a nurse observing a fellow nurse administering a medication to a patient despite a clear allergy contraindication. The primary ethical conflict lies between respecting patient autonomy—honoring the patient's right to refuse or accept treatment—and ensuring nonmaleficence, the obligation to do no harm. Critical facts include the patient's known allergy, the nurse's awareness, and the potential for adverse reactions. Emotions such as concern and anxiety emerge, underscoring the moral weight of the situation. Gaps in information might include the patient’s understanding of their allergy or reasons for the medication refusal. The dilemma is rooted in conflicting ethical obligations: respecting patient rights versus preventing harm.

2. Identifying Stakeholders

The key participants include the patient, the nurse administering care, the prescribing physician, and the healthcare institution. The patient holds rights to informed consent and autonomy; the nurse has a duty to advocate for the patient's safety and adhere to standards of care. The physician's role involves accurate prescribing based on patient information. The nurse's competence in recognizing allergies and acting accordingly is crucial. Each participant's rights, duties, and authority influence the ethical considerations and decision-making process.

3. Moral Perspectives and Development Phase

The involved parties may perceive their roles through different moral lenses—such as duties and rights-based frameworks. The nurse and physician may value professional responsibilities and patient safety, while the patient emphasizes autonomy. Analyzing their moral development stages, most participants are likely in the conventional level of moral reasoning, emphasizing adherence to rules and societal expectations. Recognizing common ground—such as the shared goal of patient well-being—helps in resolving conflicts. Differences may arise over the prioritization of autonomy versus beneficence.

4. Desired Outcomes

The patient’s desired outcome is to avoid adverse reactions and maintain autonomy; the healthcare team aims to prevent harm and ensure effective treatment. Ideally, the outcome involves administering the medication safely, with informed consent if possible. Unacceptable outcomes include medication administration leading to severe allergic reactions or withholding necessary treatment without alternative options. The consequences of the chosen action are significant, impacting patient safety, trust, and professional integrity.

5. Listing Options

Options include: withholding the medication entirely, consulting with the physician for alternative treatments, providing additional patient education, or administering the medication with enhanced monitoring. Each alternative should align with the patient’s values and legal considerations. For example, withholding medication respects autonomy but may delay treatment, while consulting the physician might offer a compromise. Alternatives must be weighed based on safety, legal implications, and ethical principles, with unacceptable options clearly identified—such as ignoring allergy data or administering medication without consent.

6. Acting on Choice

The ethically appropriate choice in this scenario would be to consult the physician for clarification or recommend an alternative treatment, ensuring the patient's safety while respecting their autonomy whenever feasible. This approach balances beneficence—preventing harm—and respect for patient rights. Explaining the reasons transparently and documenting the decision reinforces ethical integrity. Deciding to administer the medication despite allergy risks would be unethical unless emergency protocols justified such action, which is not the case here.

7. Evaluating Outcomes of Action

The original response involved the nurse alerting the physician before dispensing medication, which aligns with ethical principles. This decision likely prevented harm and demonstrated advocacy. If alternative steps had been taken, such as inadequate communication or neglect, the dilemma might persist or worsen. The action taken appears appropriate, but ongoing monitoring of the patient and documentation of communication are essential to ensure ethical accountability.

8. Ethical Principles Guiding the Decision

The core ethical principles guiding this case include nonmaleficence—avoiding harm, beneficence—acting in the patient’s best interest, respect for autonomy—honoring the patient’s rights, and justice—fair and equitable treatment. These principles serve as a foundation for the decision-making process, ensuring that actions align with professional moral standards.

9. Relevant Sections of the ANA Code of Ethics

Applicable sections of the ANA Code include Provision 1, which emphasizes respect for human dignity and the right to self-determination; Provision 3, which highlights protection of the health and safety of patients; and Provision 4, which speaks to the nurse’s role in advocating for their patients’ best interests. These sections underscore the nurse’s responsibility to act ethically and advocate effectively within the healthcare team.

10. Conclusion

The ethical dilemma involving medication allergy highlights the importance of thorough communication, adherence to ethical principles, and a commitment to patient safety. Ethical decision-making in nursing requires balancing competing obligations while maintaining professional integrity. By following a structured approach—gathering data, consulting stakeholders, analyzing moral perspectives, and applying core principles—nurses can navigate complex dilemmas with confidence and uphold the highest standards of ethical care.

References

• American Nurses Association. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. ANA.
• Beauchamp, T.L., & Childress, J.F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Clouser, K.D., & Gert, B. (1990). A substantive principle-based approach to medical ethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 15(5), 501-517.
• Gillon, R. (1994). Medical ethics: Four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ, 309(6948), 184-188.
• Jonsen, A.R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W.J. (2010). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. McGraw-Hill.
• Kodish, E. (2005). Ethical issues in pediatric research. Paediatric Drugs, 7(2), 113-124.
• Nursing: Scope and standards of practice. (2015). American Nurses Association.
• Peerally, M.F., et al. (2017). The 5 rights of clinical decision-making in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(10), 812-814.
• Sandel, M. (2010). Justice: What's the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Thompson, D.R., et al. (2014). Ethical decision-making in nursing practice. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(3), 89-94.