Capella FPX 4000 Assessment 3
Student Name
Capella University
NURS-FPX4000 Developing a Nursing Perspective
Prof. Name
Date
Applying Ethical Principles
In healthcare, ethical principles serve as a critical foundation for decision-making, guiding professionals to ensure fairness, equity, and the well-being of patients. These principles include autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Applying these principles requires balancing personal values with professional responsibilities, fostering patient-centered care, and navigating moral dilemmas with integrity (Mousavi, 2024). This assessment will explore the ethical dilemma, analyze the application of ethical principles, and propose a solution to the challenge using a structured decision-making model.
Overview of the Case Study
Choosing the case study related to Conscientious Objection (C0) and professional
responsibility. Conscientious objection permits healthcare professionals to decline involvement in specific procedures due to personal moral or ethical convictions, which can create challenges when it conflicts with patient autonomy and the quality of care provided. In the case of Nurse Amelia Brooks, the primary ethical dilemma revolves around her personal beliefs against abortion and her professional responsibility to provide patient care without discrimination. Amelia’s refusal to assist in the procedure due to her religious beliefs conflicts with the principle of autonomy, which supports Sophie Turner’s right to make decisions regarding her own body. At the same time, Amelia must adhere to professional responsibility and non-maleficence, ensuring that patient care is not compromised (Capella University, n.d.).
Analysis of Ethical Issues in the Case Study
Peer-reviewed literature provides insight into complex issues. The selected articles were chosen for their relevance to Amelia’s ethical dilemma, as they emphasize the need to balance beliefs with obligations to ensure patient’s access to non-discriminatory care while respecting both religious rights and legal patient rights. For example, an article by Lamb and Pesut (2021), discusses conscientious objection in healthcare, emphasizing that while healthcare providers have the right to object on moral grounds, this must be balanced with the professional obligation to ensure patient access to care.
The article supports the analysis of Amelia’s ethical dilemma by highlighting the importance of balancing personal beliefs with the duty to provide non-discriminatory healthcare. It also discusses the potential harm to patients if personal beliefs are allowed to obstruct access to legal medical procedures, reinforcing the need for a structured approach to ensure both moral integrity and patient rights (Lamb & Pesut, 2021). An article by Negro et al. (2022), discusses how conscientious objection to abortion is often based on religious beliefs, particularly regarding the sanctity of life. It highlights the conflict between healthcare providers’ religious rights and patients’ legal rights to access abortion services.
Legal protections exist for religious freedom, allowing providers to refuse to perform abortions, but these must be balanced with ensuring patient access to care. The authors advocate for clear regulations that respect religious objections while maintaining access to abortion through alternative providers. Another study by Krawutschke et al. (2024), explores conscientious refusal and ethical accommodation in medical settings, suggesting that healthcare institutions should have policies in place to address these conflicts, including the possibility of transferring care to another professional without compromising patient care. This article is relevant to Amelia’s case as it supports the notion that conscientious objection should not result in care denial but rather be managed in a way that preserves both the care provider’s moral integrity and the patient’s access to care.Effectiveness of the Communication Approaches
In the case study, Nurse Amelia’s communication approach is critical in navigating the ethical dilemma. Effective communication with both the patient, Sophie Turner, and her colleagues, including Dr. Rebecca Martin, is essential. Open, respectful, and transparent dialogue is key to ensuring that both staff’s moral beliefs and patient’s healthcare needs are addressed (Bercu et al., 2022). Amelia should clearly express her conscientious objection to Dr. Martin professionally and respectfully, explaining her reasons without being confrontational. This open dialogue would allow Dr. Martin to understand Amelia’s position and arrange for another nurse to assist, ensuring patient care is not compromised. Such transparency promotes teamwork and protects patient rights while respecting patient’s beliefs (Lowe et al., 2022).
Amelia should also approach Sophie with empathy and professionalism, ensuring that her personal beliefs do not influence her interactions with the patient. By maintaining a neutral and supportive tone, healthcare personnel can uphold the patient’s autonomy and dignity, allowing the patient to feel supported in her decision (Lewis & Holm, 2022). One approach to avoid is withholding information or refusing to communicate healthcare staff’s objections until the last minute, which could disrupt patient care and erode trust among colleagues (Merner et al., 2023). Similarly, if Amelia were to communicate her objection in a judgmental or dismissive way, it would likely strain relationships with both her colleagues and patients, creating unnecessary conflict. In a nutshell, proactive, respectful communication should be emphasized, while judgmental or untimely communication should be avoided. Effective communication fosters collaboration and ensures that patient care remains the top priority (Sheehan et al., 2021).
Using the Ethical Decision-Making Model to Analyze the Case Study
In the case study of Nurse Amelia, her approach to the ethical dilemma involving her objection to abortion can be analyzed utilizing the ethical decision-making model, which includes moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior. Amelia demonstrates moral awareness by recognizing the conflict between her personal religious beliefs and her professional duties. Moral awareness of the ethical dilemma is the first critical step in identifying the need for a resolution (Rahmani et al., 2022). However, she must balance this with the awareness of her obligation to provide non-discriminatory care to Sophie Turner. Failing to acknowledge Sophie’s autonomy would lead to an ineffective approach. Amelia’s decision-making process involves weighing her beliefs against her duty as a nurse.
Engaging in constructive dialogue with the supervisor and colleagues to ensure alternative care for the patient demonstrates good moral judgment (Hertz et al., 2023). In contrast, if Nurse Amelia refuses to participate in any solution or fails to communicate her objection promptly, it reflects poor moral judgment, potentially compromising patient care. If Amelia upholds ethical behavior by ensuring that Sophie’s care is not interrupted, perhaps by arranging for another nurse to assist, this would be an effective approach. It would demonstrate her ability to respect patient autonomy while maintaining her personal integrity. An ineffective approach, such as failing to find a resolution, would not only harm the patient but could lead to professional and legal consequences, as patient care would be jeopardized (Giubilini & Savulescu, 2020).
By following a structured ethical decision-making process, a nurse can uphold patient care while respecting their moral stance, maintaining both professional integrity and trust between healthcare providers and patients. However, failure to follow this model could result in delayed care, emotional distress for Sophie, and potential legal or disciplinary actions against Amelia for neglecting her professional responsibilities. Applying the ethical decision-making model effectively ensures a balanced resolution that respects both personal ethics and professional obligations (Alaybek et al., 2022).
Resolving the Ethical Dilemma by Applying Ethical Principles
A possible solution to Amelia’s ethical dilemma is to transfer Sophie’s care to another healthcare provider who has no objections to performing the procedure. This approach aligns with the four core ethical principles (Krawutschke et al., 2024). Firstly, by ensuring Sophie receives the procedure she has decided upon, this solution respects her right to make informed decisions about her own body and medical treatment. It acknowledges and supports her autonomy in choosing her care, which is a fundamental ethical obligation in healthcare. Secondly, the transfer of care ensures that Sophie receives the necessary medical intervention in a timely manner, thereby promoting her well-being. The beneficence principle emphasizes the duty to prioritize the patient’s well-being, providing appropriate care to achieve the best possible outcome (Mousavi, 2024).
Thirdly, Amelia’s decision to step away from the procedure prevents harm to herself, abiding to the non-maleficence principle, by avoiding a conflict between her personal beliefs and professional responsibilities. It prevents potential harm to the patient by ensuring that access to the procedure is not obstructed (Londras et al., 2023). This approach minimizes harm to both parties by respecting personal integrity while still addressing patient needs. Lastly, by facilitating the transfer of care to another provider, the solution ensures that Sophie’s access to legal medical services is not denied due to a personal objection of a healthcare provider. This principle is concerned with fairness and equality, ensuring that all patients receive the care they require without discrimination or undue delay (Giubilini et al., 2023).
Conclusion
In conclusion, addressing Nurse Amelia Brooks’ ethical dilemma requires a careful balance between her personal beliefs and her professional responsibilities. Through the use of the ethical decision-making framework and guidelines, Amelia can resolve the conflict effectively. Transferring Sophie Turner’s care to another provider ensures that Sophie’s rights and well-being are upheld while allowing Amelia to maintain her moral integrity. This approach not only respects both parties’ needs but also supports a fair and equitable healthcare environment.
References
Alaybek, B., Dalal, R. S., & Dade, B. (2022). Individual differences in judgment and decision-making: Novel predictors of counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09843-x
Bercu, C., Filippa, S., Ramirez, A. M., Katz, A., Grosso, B., Zurbriggen, R., Vázquez, S., & Baum, S. E. (2022). Perspectives on high-quality interpersonal care among people obtaining abortions in Argentina. Reproductive Health, 19(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-022-01401-1
Capella University. (n.d.). Assessment 03 – Applying ethical principles. Capella.edu. https://signon.capella.edu/
Giubilini, A., & Savulescu, J. (2020). Beyond money: Conscientious objection in medicine as a conflict of interests. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 17(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-09976-9
Capella FPX 4000 Assessment 3
Giubilini, A., Schuklenk, U., Minerva, F., & Savulescu, J. (2023). Conscientious commitment, professional obligations, and abortion provision after the reversal of Roe v Wade. Journal of Medical Ethics, 50, 347–348. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108731
Hertz, U., Jia, F., & Francis, K. B. (2023). Moral judgement and decision-making: Theoretical predictions and null results. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 7688. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34899-x
Krawutschke, R., Pastrana, T., & Schmitz, D. (2024). Conscientious objection and barriers to abortion within a specific regional context – an expert interview study. BMC Medical Ethics, 25(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01007-1
Lamb, C., & Pesut, B. (2021). Conscience and conscientious objection in nursing: A personalist bioethics approach. Nursing Ethics, 28(7-8), 1319–1328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733021996037
Lewis, J., & Holm, S. (2022). Patient autonomy, clinical decision making, and the Phenomenological reduction. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 25(4), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-022-10102-2
Londras, F. de, Cleeve, A., Rodriguez, M. I., Farrell, A., Furgalska, M., & Lavelanet, A. F. (2023). The Impact of “conscientious objection” on abortion-related outcomes: A synthesis of legal and health evidence. Health Policy, 129, 104716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104716
Lowe, A. E., Voo, T. C., Lee, L. M., Gillespie, K. K. D., Feig, C., Ferdinand, A. O., Mohapatra, S., Major, D. M. B., & Wynia, M. K. (2022). Uncertainty, scarcity and transparency: Public health ethics and risk communication in a pandemic. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, 16, 100374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100374
Merner, B., Haining, C. M., Willmott, L., Savulescu, J., & Keogh, L. A. (2023). Institutional objection to abortion: A mixed-methods narrative review. Women’s Health, 19, 174550572311523. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057231152373
Mousavi, S. (2024). Global ethical principles in healthcare networks, including debates on euthanasia and abortion. Cureus, 16(4), e59116. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.59116
Negro, F., Varone, M. C., Rio, A. D., Marinelli, S., & Basile, G. (2022). Conscientious objection to abortion: How to strike a legal and ethical balance between conflicting rights? Acta Bio-Medica : Atenei Parmensis, 93(4), e2022279. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v93i4.13477
Rahmani, P., Behshid, M., Farshad, M. S., Mousavi, S., & Tavani, F. M. (2022). Moral awareness and its relationship with moral sensitivity among Iranian nursing students: A basis for nursing ethics education. Nursing Open, 10(2), 773–780. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1344
Capella FPX 4000 Assessment 3
Sheehan, J., Laver, K., Bhopti, A., Rahja, M., Usherwood, T., Clemson, L., & Lannin, N. A. (2021). Methods and effectiveness of communication between hospital allied health and primary care practitioners: A systematic narrative review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 14(14), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S295549