What Expertise, Supports, And Character Traits Do You Believ

What expertise, supports, and character traits do you believe a nurse needs to possess in order to practice non-maleficence in nursing?

In nursing, the principle of non-maleficence, which emphasizes "do no harm," is fundamental to ethical practice. To uphold this principle effectively, nurses must develop a range of expertise, supportive skills, and character traits. These qualities ensure that patient care is safe, responsible, and aligned with ethical standards. First, clinical competence is essential; a nurse must possess thorough knowledge and skills to deliver evidence-based care. For example, a competent nurse accurately monitors medication administration, reducing the risk of adverse reactions that could harm the patient. This expertise helps mitigate potential harm by preventing errors and ensuring safety.

Secondly, critical thinking and sound judgment are vital traits that enable nurses to assess complex situations thoroughly and make informed decisions. For instance, when encountering conflicting patient information, a nurse with strong judgment will evaluate all data critically and choose actions that minimize injury or harm. These skills promote ethical decision-making by supporting assessments that prioritize patient safety and well-being. Furthermore, compassion and empathy are character traits that underpin ethical practice by fostering genuine concern for patients’ suffering and needs. A compassionate nurse will be attentive to subtle signs of distress or deterioration, intervening promptly to prevent harm, thus embodying non-maleficence effectively.

Resilience and emotional stability also support non-maleficence by enabling nurses to cope with stressful situations without compromising patient safety. For example, a resilient nurse can maintain focus during emergencies, ensuring correct procedures are followed under pressure, thereby preventing inadvertent harm. Additionally, professionalism and accountability are crucial support structures. When nurses take responsibility for their actions and maintain accountability, they are more likely to adhere to standards that prevent harm. For instance, reporting medication errors promptly reflects a commitment to non-maleficence by addressing issues proactively and preventing further harm.

Communication skills constitute another core element necessary for practicing non-maleficence. Clear and effective communication ensures that vital information is accurately conveyed among healthcare team members and to patients. For example, a nurse who effectively communicates a change in a patient’s condition prevents misunderstandings that could lead to inappropriate or harmful interventions. Ethical nursing practice is reinforced when nurses actively listen, clarify instructions, and advocate for patients, thereby reducing the risk of harm caused by miscommunication. In summary, clinical competence, critical thinking, compassion, resilience, professionalism, and communication are key traits and supports that enable nurses to uphold the principle of non-maleficence, ensuring safe and ethical patient care.

Describe a situation in which non-maleficence might potentially come into conflict with a different precept in nursing.

A common situation where non-maleficence may conflict with another ethical principle involves end-of-life care decisions, particularly regarding the use of life-sustaining treatments. For example, a nurse might care for a patient in a persistent vegetative state who is on mechanical ventilation. The healthcare team and the patient’s family may face the dilemma of whether to continue aggressive treatment to prolong life or to withdraw support to lessen suffering. In such scenarios, the principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm) can come into tension with respect for patient autonomy.

In this context, continuing life support could potentially cause harm by prolonging a state of suffering or a poor quality of life, thus conflicting with non-maleficence. Conversely, withdrawing treatment might be perceived as causing harm by ending life prematurely, which could conflict with the family’s or patient’s wishes for life preservation. The dilemma intensifies when the patient’s preferences are unknown or undocumented, raising questions about respecting autonomy versus preventing potential harm. For example, the healthcare team might feel that withdrawing treatment is ethically appropriate to prevent further suffering (beneficence and non-maleficence), but the family may perceive this as hastening death, conflicting with their values and the respect owed to the patient’s autonomy.

Analyze what you see as the most ethical approach to dealing with this tension.

The most ethical approach to resolving this conflict involves balancing respect for the patient’s autonomy with the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence through shared decision-making. First, clear communication with the patient’s family and, if possible, the patient, is crucial to understanding previously expressed wishes or values. When the patient’s preferences are unknown, healthcare providers should rely on ethical frameworks such as patient-centered care and consider the best interests of the patient while minimizing harm. Engaging an interdisciplinary ethics committee can also provide guidance in complex situations, ensuring that decisions are made ethically and transparently.

Respecting autonomy entails honoring the patient’s previously expressed wishes or advanced directives. If the patient has explicitly indicated a desire not to undergo aggressive interventions in certain circumstances, healthcare providers should honor these wishes, provided they are informed and consistent with ethical standards. When autonomy is not clearly established, decisions should prioritize beneficence and non-maleficence by avoiding unnecessary suffering and considering the overall benefits and harms of continuing or withdrawing treatment.

Using palliative care principles can help strike a balance between prolonging life and preventing suffering. For instance, shifting focus to comfort measures while respecting the patient’s dignity aligns with ethical practice when curative treatment offers little benefit. Facilitating compassionate communication, involving ethics consultations, and respecting the values and cultural beliefs of the patient and family are essential steps in navigating this tension ethically. Ultimately, prioritizing transparency, honesty, and shared decision-making fosters trust and ensures that care aligns with ethical standards.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Cummings, S. (2021). Ethical dilemmas in end-of-life care: Balancing beneficence and autonomy. Journal of Nursing Ethics, 28(3), 456-463.
• Johnstone, M. J., & Kanitsaki, O. (2016). Ethics and cultural considerations in end-of-life care: A review. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 27(2), 147–153.
• Kirchhoff, K. T. (2019). Ethical considerations in withdrawing life support. Nursing Ethics, 26(2), 375-386.
• Lawrence, D., & Watt, W. (2017). Ethical decision-making in nursing practice. Nursing Standard, 31(23), 48-54.
• McDougall, R. J. (2018). Moral dilemmas and nursing practice. Nursing Ethics, 25(4), 473-484.
• Pellegrino, E. D., & Thomasma, D. C. (2019). For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. Oxford University Press.
• Spears, R. A., & Parnell, K. (2020). Ethical principles in nursing: A review. Nursing Forum, 55(1), 12–23.
• Sulmasy, D. P., & Stack, C. (2018). The ethics of withholding or withdrawing treatment. Journal of Pallitative Medicine, 21(10), 1450-1456.
• Wocial, L. D., & Hundt, A. (2017). Respect for autonomy in end-of-life decision making: Ethical perspectives. Journal of Nursing Law, 20(2), 73-80.