Summarize the facts in a case study and use the three components of an ethical decision-making model to analyze an ethical problem or issue and the factors that contributed to it. Identify which case study you selected and briefly summarize the facts surrounding it. Identify the problem or issue that presents an ethical dilemma or challenge and describe that dilemma or challenge. Identify who is involved or affected by the ethical problem or issue. Access the Ethical Decision-Making Modelmedia piece and use the three components of the ethical decision-making model (moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior) to analyze the ethical issues.

Applying Ethical Principles

Introduction

Every day healthcare professionals face ethical dilemmas that require them to incorporate their moral values and ethical principles in making the right decisions. In their ethical decision-making, healthcare workers must apply the four primary ethical principles: justice, non-maleficence, beneficence, and autonomy (Brown, 2020). Using these principles, they can make complex decisions involving patients. Therefore, by applying ethical principles, this paper seeks to develop solutions to the ethical dilemma that Dr. Kerr faces in the case study “Incident 10: To Vaccinate, or Not?”.

Overview of the Case Study

The case study presents the case of a 5-day-old baby girl, Ana, whose parents are Jenna and Chris Smith. The parents are committed to naturally raising their child and have decided against vaccinating her. The Smiths believe that the potential risks associated with vaccines outweigh any benefits and cite the increasing rates of autism as evidence. They have conducted extensive research on vaccines, relying heavily on online sources such as mommy blogs that suggest a link between vaccines and autism (Capella University, n.d.). However, Ana’s pediatrician, Dr. Angela Kerr, recommends fully vaccinating Ana. Dr. Kerr emphasizes the crucial role vaccines have played in saving millions of children’s lives globally and reducing child mortality rates over the past century. She assures the Smiths that vaccines are generally safe and have not been proven to cause/result in ASD or any other developmental disorder (Capella University, n.d.). Dr. Kerr also stresses the importance of routine childhood immunization in promoting public health by directly benefiting those who receive the vaccine and providing herd immunity to protect others. Despite understanding Dr. Kerr’s explanations, the Smiths remain adamant in their decision not to vaccinate Ana, which poses an ethical dilemma for Dr. Kerr. (Capella University, n.d.).

Ethical Issues Analysis

The case study raises several ethical issues regarding vaccination, parental autonomy, and the physician’s duty to protect the child’s health. To begin with, one ethical issue in this case study is whether or not to vaccinate Ana. The Smiths have decided not to vaccinate their child, while Dr. Kerr recommends full vaccination. It is crucial to note that according to Nguyen et al. (2022), parental hesitancy to vaccines has proven to be a barrier to their children’s immunization, resulting in a greater risk for diseases that are preventable through a vaccine. Vaccination effectively prevents and controls infectious diseases, but it carries some risks (Nguyen et al., 2022). Parents are expected to make informed decisions about their child’s healthcare, but their decision should be based on scientific evidence rather than misinformation. In this case, the Smiths have based their decision on online mommy blogs, making them believe that vaccines have potential harms that far outweigh any benefits. On the other hand, Dr. Kerr has presented evidence-based information on the benefits and safety of vaccination.

Another ethical issue in this case study is parental autonomy. Ana’s parents have the obligation and right to make decisions about their child’s healthcare, but this right is not absolute. Parents should act in their child’s best interests and make informed decisions based on scientific evidence (Salter, 2012). In this case, the Smiths have decided not to vaccinate their child based on their beliefs and research, which may not be based on scientific evidence. Dr. Kerr must provide the Smiths with accurate and evidence-based information on vaccination, but the ultimate decision rests with the parents.

A third ethical issue in this case study is the physician’s duty to protect the child’s health. Physicians have a professional and ethical obligation to promote their patients’ health and well-being, especially vulnerable and dependent children (Brown, 2020). In this case, Dr. Kerr is concerned about Ana’s health and recommends full vaccination to protect her from vaccine-preventable illnesses. However, the Smiths have refused vaccination for their child, which may put Ana’s health at risk. Dr. Kerr may need to consider her duty to report the parents’ decision to refuse vaccination to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services, if she believes Ana’s health and well-being are at risk.

Ethical Decision-Making Model

According to Small & Lew (2021), the ethical decision-making model has three main components: “moral awareness, moral judgement, and ethical behavior.” Moral awareness involves recognizing that an ethical issue