Essay Sample on Applying Ethics Principles: To Vaccinate or Not?

Health workers frequently come across ethical dilemmas in their field of work. Ethical principles are considered to be the most crucial aspect of the clinicians' practice. Simply, ethic principles involve standards set to aid nurses and health workers in making proper decisions when assessing the consequences of their actions (Kuga et al., 2019). For example, nurses should allow the patients to decide the methods of treatment even when they are not the best. In this paper, the ethical dilemma involves vaccination. A vaccine is a substance prepared biologically, to activate antibodies production and strengthens the bodies' immunity. Strong body immunity helps the body to fight various diseases (Kuga et al., 2019). Vaccines are administered at different times, either once or multiples doses. The National Vaccines Programs and other central vaccine committees allow a vaccine to be part of the immunization schedule after thorough research, testing, and monitoring. Vaccines prevent people from getting sick hence help in raising a healthy population. The vaccines ensure health success by eradicating diseases such as; polio, measles, tetanus, and smallpox.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Smiths in the case study are against vaccination because they believe it could do more harm than good to their five-year-old girl. After several kinds of research on the internet they concluded that vaccines are responsible for the rising autism cases in the country. Despite Dr. Kerr explaining to them that vaccines have saved millions of children's lives, they were rigid on their decision. Dr. Kerr also explained that some children are protected from vaccine-preventable diseases because the surrounding community is vaccinated. He also informed them of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data sources, which regularly update vaccines. VAERS ensures vaccine transparency by encouraging the public to report vaccines' adverse reactions. Reporting enables the government to monitor vaccine safety (Kuga et al., 2019). The doctor noted that Vaccine related illnesses would increase if parents continue to resist immunization for their healthy children. Dr. Smith educated groups that children with genetic conditions, undergoing cancer treatment, or too young are not supposed to be vaccinated. When the Smiths were adamant about their decision, Dr. Kerr did not pressure them about vaccinating their daughter. The Smiths based their decision on their emotions, and they felt that vaccinating their daughter was not the right thing to do.

On the other hand, Dr. Kerr was very professional and patient while explaining the benefits of vaccines. In the United States, there are policies that all school-going children must be vaccinated (Kuga et al., 2019). A factor that contributed to the ethical dilemma is the internet, where the smiths watched mum blogs and internet articles that showed how vaccines had caused Autism to many children. They also had their personal goals, where they decided to raise their child on organic foods only. Their education, knowledge, and background also made them decide against vaccinating their daughter. In this case study, the ethical dilemma is parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Some parents believe that Vaccines are 'unnatural' and can harm their children (Hendrix et al., 2016). Some families reject vaccines because their religious and cultural practices are against the practice. Other parents have a notion that not subjecting their children to the risk of vaccination, they will enjoy herd immunity. There are views that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be held liable by law. In some cases, when a child does not undertake the procedure, they get sick and expose other members of the community to vaccinated diseases (Hendrix et al., 2016). There is a debate among the health care providers on the ethics of not providing treatment to families who refuse vaccination on non-medical grounds. Several ideas, such as preventing unvaccinated children from attending school and participating in games, withholding their parents' taxes have been thought of to encourage families to vaccinate their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics committee encourages health workers to hear the family concerns first on their refusal to vaccinate their children and then discuss the risks for failure to vaccinate (Hendrix et al., 2016).

Dr. Kerr used the participatory method of communication. Through dialogue, he allowed the Smiths to share their opinion about vaccinations. Dr. Kerr is an excellent and persuasive communicator because he listened to the Smiths attentively when sharing their reasons against immunization. After listening to them, he discussed at length why the practice is necessary, including the various diseases they expose their child to if they do not vaccinate her. The health care workers should use the presumptive approach method, because in most cases, the families tend to finally agree to vaccination without resistance. At times, this method is at a disadvantage because parents feel that health providers do not care about their decisions. The participatory and guiding approaches should be used more by health care workers because they involve the families in deciding what is best for their children (Anderson et al., 2019). These approaches can pose a severe disadvantage to the children and can increase the risk for disease infection because, in most cases, parents take time to get their children vaccinated. The guiding approach is critical because it helps the health care provider to address specific issues from families.

The approach used by Dr. Kerr left the Smiths satisfied, and they were happy that the doctor respected their decision. The potential for conflict was low because everything explained by the doctor to the Smiths, and vice versa was clear. Effective communications in hospitals helps to improve patient-doctor relationships. Communication allows doctors earn trust from families, making it easier for them to convince patients undergo crucial treatments. In these cases, there is usually no room for misunderstanding because both parties are involved in mutual conversations. Non-effective communication between health providers and patients can lead to low-quality health care (Anderson et al., 2019). Studies show that most hospitals' deaths result from poor communication between fellow health workers or between patients and doctors (Anderson et al., 2019). Poor communication can make parents lose faith in doctors, resulting in strained relationships which can be a significant cause for vaccination refusal. Ineffective communication makes the families feel that the doctors are concerned about their well-being. Usually, these parents are under a lot of pressure, and health practitioners need to take time and explain things thoroughly to them.

The health practitioners should discuss facts with the families, as Dr. Kerr did with the Smiths. At times, families can be difficult to deal with. However, we heath care providers should patiently explain everything in details to help them make the right decisions (Anderson et al., 2019). The doctors should respect the parents' decision, but if failure to vaccinate can expose children to danger, they should find all means to ensure the procedure is undertaken. For example, measles is an infectious disease, and failure to vaccinate can impose threat to other members of the community (Kuga et al., 2019).

All people across all states should be educated on the importance of vaccines, especially the side effects of avoiding the practice. People with no access to proper health facilities should be provided the services at their doorsteps. Also, parents should be educated on evaluating the right internet sources to get information. Some blogs and articles are biased or money oriented, thus can mislead them immensely. Health practitioners should ensure good communication with the parents to provide healthy professional relationships. As a result, more people will not be reluctant about the vaccine administration, leading to bringing up healthy children. In return, there will be a healthy population, and Vaccine preventable diseases will be reduced.

References

Anderson, R. J., Bloch, S., Armstrong, M., Stone, P. C., & Low, J. T. (2019). Communication between healthcare professionals and relatives of patients approaching the end-of-life: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Palliative medicine, 33(8), 926–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319852007

Hendrix, K. S., Sturm, L. A., Zimet, G. D., & Meslin, E. M. (2016). Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States. American journal of public health, 106(2), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302952

Kuga, K., Tanimoto, J., & Jusup, M. (2019). To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: a comprehensive study of vaccination-subsidizing policies with multi-agent simulations and mean-field modeling. Journal of theoretical biology, 469, 107-126.