Case 2: Howard the Public Health Nurse
In this essay, I will briefly highlight a case of an ethical dilemma faced by a Public Health Nurse. I will discuss two possible courses of action based on two ethical theories: Utilitarianism and Deontology. I will identify which theory I believe best resolves the ethical issues at hand. After describing the opposing perspectives of these two theories, I will provide an argument to establish why the theory I chose offers the most favorable solution.
Moral Issues
In this case, Howard, a Public Health Nurse, observes that many of the parents at the clinic do not have strong English skills, and thus may not understand the consent forms they sign to have their children immunized. He struggles to decide …show more content…
He would be sacrificing the parents’ right to make informed choices in order to have a greater effect on their health and to reduce the strain on the health care system. This aligns with the principle of choosing the action that will create the greatest pleasure for the greatest amount of people. In making this decision, Howard would also be focusing on the consequences of his decision, rather than the moral issues in the act itself (denying the parents’ right to informed choice). By weighing the difference between the potential pleasure and pain, Howard could assume that the amount of pain the parents experience from being uninformed is very minimal, as they are already ignorant to the harms and benefits of the procedure. He may even assume that by keeping them uninformed, they are actually experiencing less pain, because they can simply trust the health care providers and avoid the stress of navigating medical information. When weighing this negligible amount of pain against the great amount of pleasure that will come from administering the immunizations to create healthy, disease free communities, the decision to not inform the parents’ is preferred. Furthermore, if Howard were to advocate for the parents to be informed, he would risk having them decide against immunizations, thus …show more content…
There are several reasons that support this argument. Firstly, if Howard were to overlook the parents’ lack of consent, his maxim would fail when tested against the C.I. In relation to the universalization formulation, considering his maxim “I will not give patients the information they need to give informed consent so that strain on the health care system is reduced”, as a universal law “all health care providers will not give patients the information they need to give informed consent so that the strain on the health care system is reduced” clearly shows that this is a detrimental law, and thus should not be accepted by Howard. Furthermore, when applying the means-ends formulation to Howard’s case, it is clear that if he were to ignore the parents’ lack of understanding in order to reduce strain on the health care system, he would be using them as a means, and not as an end. In order for him to treat them as an end, he must uphold their inherent value and dignity, thus advocating for them to have the resources they need to make an informed
In this essay, I will briefly highlight a case of an ethical dilemma faced by a Public Health Nurse. I will discuss two possible courses of action based on two ethical theories: Utilitarianism and Deontology. I will identify which theory I believe best resolves the ethical issues at hand. After describing the opposing perspectives of these two theories, I will provide an argument to establish why the theory I chose offers the most favorable solution.
Moral Issues
In this case, Howard, a Public Health Nurse, observes that many of the parents at the clinic do not have strong English skills, and thus may not understand the consent forms they sign to have their children immunized. He struggles to decide …show more content…
He would be sacrificing the parents’ right to make informed choices in order to have a greater effect on their health and to reduce the strain on the health care system. This aligns with the principle of choosing the action that will create the greatest pleasure for the greatest amount of people. In making this decision, Howard would also be focusing on the consequences of his decision, rather than the moral issues in the act itself (denying the parents’ right to informed choice). By weighing the difference between the potential pleasure and pain, Howard could assume that the amount of pain the parents experience from being uninformed is very minimal, as they are already ignorant to the harms and benefits of the procedure. He may even assume that by keeping them uninformed, they are actually experiencing less pain, because they can simply trust the health care providers and avoid the stress of navigating medical information. When weighing this negligible amount of pain against the great amount of pleasure that will come from administering the immunizations to create healthy, disease free communities, the decision to not inform the parents’ is preferred. Furthermore, if Howard were to advocate for the parents to be informed, he would risk having them decide against immunizations, thus …show more content…
There are several reasons that support this argument. Firstly, if Howard were to overlook the parents’ lack of consent, his maxim would fail when tested against the C.I. In relation to the universalization formulation, considering his maxim “I will not give patients the information they need to give informed consent so that strain on the health care system is reduced”, as a universal law “all health care providers will not give patients the information they need to give informed consent so that the strain on the health care system is reduced” clearly shows that this is a detrimental law, and thus should not be accepted by Howard. Furthermore, when applying the means-ends formulation to Howard’s case, it is clear that if he were to ignore the parents’ lack of understanding in order to reduce strain on the health care system, he would be using them as a means, and not as an end. In order for him to treat them as an end, he must uphold their inherent value and dignity, thus advocating for them to have the resources they need to make an informed