The Four Main Ethical Theory Of Beauchamp And Childress

Ethics of healthcare depends on 4 moral standards and how they are utilised; autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Autonomy, which means self-governance, is the rule for regarding the privileges of a person to settle on a choice for them self, and respecting that decision. In healthcare this implies regarding a patient's choice on treatments, regardless of the possibility that it could bring about damage or demise to themselves. Autonomy is about self-rule, control free, without impact or influence from any other person, and is tied in with making an educated and un-forced choice about their care and medicines, based from their qualities and inclinations.

The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.

The tem ethics refers to the moral principles that guide a person’s behavior, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of their actions. In the field of nursing, these moral principles govern the relationship between the nurse and the patient, members of the healthcare team, and society at large. Nurses must constantly question whether a certain procedure or course of treatment is in the best interest of the patient. When viewing the film “Miss Evers’ Boys”, it was clear that the doctors, researchers, and even Miss Evers were not acting in the best interest of all the patients. This movie depicted true events of a study that took place in Macon County, Alabama, in 1932. This study was referred to as the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis

Discrimination against patients by physicians is well known.  In recent years, we have seen a rise in physicians rejecting patients of sexual orientation, disabilities, patient's unwillingness to vaccinate, particular race, and religious views.  Discrimination against patients is a real issue that needs to be addressed and ended.  Most of these rejections are solely dependent of the physician's conscience and beliefs.  Despite these beliefs of the physician, patients are left feeling discriminated against and feel unworthy of healthcare.  Physicians go into this career to care for patients and they should go into this career willing to take care of patients of other gender identities, race, and other religious beliefs other than their own.

In this reading, the ethical issue is related to decision making for an incompetent patient. Here is some background information about the case:

Identify two basic ethical principles applicable to this clinical setting. Explain why you chose these particular principles. Describe each ethical principle and how it was evident.

However, the responsible and trusted caregiver team must take an action through multiple processes in order to favor the patient. Although the physicians have known earlier when the terminally ill patient near to die, they are not comfortable with withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments. The intention is not to kill the patient, but using the available technology and creating a moral obligation to use what ethical principle prescribes. Underlining the disease process cannot be reversed, life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn acknowledging that the treatment limitation (Reynolds, Coper, & McKneally, 2005). Ethics committee is a helpful source of advice that can provide consultation about ethical issues in treatment limitation. Because of the valuable outcomes in resolving ethical issues in end-of-life care, the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of health care organizations requires the health care facilities to establish ethics committee (Derse,

Another very important ethical principle is beneficence. Beneficence as described in the article, ‘Ethics and Pain Management in Hospitalized Patients’ by Bernhofer (2012), is the principle of doing good. What this principle means is that care must be provided in an appropriate and timely manner. Nurses must provide pain relief on time and at the right dose for effective pain relief. Based on research pain is best treated before it becomes severe. To avoid this kind of complication, nurses must administer pain medication routinely as prescribed by the

Dr. Gress’s view that the results of a genetic test should be withheld from patients if they are positive is paternalistic, immoral, and does not consider the autonomy of the individual. He holds the position that notifying patients of their genetic status is too harmful and that it is a doctor’s duty to withhold information that could be devastating; however, in doing so, he violates many ethical principles that doctors should exercise. This paper will give an overview on the topic of genetic testing and the ethical and moral problems associated with it, an analysis rejecting Dr. Gress’s view, and a response to an objection to the thesis of which this paper is based on.

The article Advance Care Planing - A Primer, which written by Karishma Taneja, Puneet Sayal since 2015 summer. The major theme in this article which is about pain assessment, the substitute decision making (SDM), the end of life (EOL) care, Ethics of Care and advance care plaining (ACP).

Moral principles are a group of ethical values used to direct decision-making (Stephany, 2012). Non-maleficence is defined as “the duty to minimize harm and do no wrong to the patient” and beneficence is the responsibility to act to benefit the patient (Pollard, 2014, p. 115). Contradictory to the meaning of non-maleficence and beneficence, evidence supports that medical administration of nutrition at end of life is a ‘futile’ intervention and can lead to more negative than positive outcomes (Krishna, 2011). Possible benefits and risks of nutrition must always be considered prior to administration (Shaw & Eldridge, 2015). A patient’s rights to make informed decisions regarding own their care is referred to as respect for autonomy (Pollard, 2014). By presenting the patient with all treatment options available to them and discussing the potential benefits and burdens associated with each option, a patient’s right of autonomy is respected (Shaw & Eldridge, 2015). Health care providers must consider whether intervening with nutrition would keep the patient in hospital rather than in the comfort of their own home, and if such support would exacerbate symptoms (Shaw & Eldridge, 2015); the significance of these considerations may have the potential to modify the previously agreed upon care plan. Protecting

Firstly, I will criticise Principlism as a unifying theory of bioethics wholly applicable to ICU based on definition and specificity. Lack of definition of the four principles allows much scope for interpretation which reduces their applicability to some complex moral issues arising in ICU. I will also contend that attempts by some advocates to award an increased value to autonomy are at variance with the origins of principlism and suffer from a lack of clarity in their conception and application. Then, given the myriad of conflicting moral issues surrounding end-of-life affairs in ICU, I will argue that the proposed methodology suggested by proponents of principlism to resolve conflict is flawed and overly dependent on moral

Nurses face ethical dilemmas every day, it is part of what is required as part of our daily routine. Despite ones personal beliefs on multiple challenging issues, such as choice versus pro-life or life saving measures versus the right to die, it is the nurse’s role to be an advocate for the patient and their needs.

The case study of Mrs. S presents the reluctance of Mrs. S to obtain the surgery needed to fix her heart problems. The family support and good health of Mrs. S and her husband appears positive in every avenue of life. The refusal of Mrs. S declining the surgery is an example of autonomy and informed consent. The decision of the physicians to suggest surgery to replace the heart value seems logical based on her current health condition.

Nurses may face challenges in life that may impact their capabilities in providing care to their patients. In this situation, nurses should use their professional judgement and ethical thinking in order to fulfill their responsibilities, efficiently and effectively.