Using the Ethical Decision Making Model to Analyze the Case Study

Using the Ethical Decision Making Model to Analyze the Case Study

The ethical decision-making model offers an excellent mechanism for critical planning of potential solutions to an ethical dilemma. In most cases, health care providers use this tool to make an ethical decision in situations leading to a dilemma (Bianco et al., 2019). In the case of Ana’s vaccination, an excellent mechanism to solve the stalemate between Dr. Kerr and Ana’s parents involves moral judgment, moral, awareness, and ethical behavior. Moral judgment is the declaration of the appropriate mechanism to deal with an existential problem. It offers a basis for determining the right and the wrong attributes. Unlike moral judgment, moral awareness is the sensitivity that people exhibit towards an individual’s values and personal morals. For a person to conduct the right thing, which refers to ethical behavior, he or she must adhere to moral judgment and moral awareness (O’Rourke, Thompson, & McMillan, 2019). In the case of Ana’s vaccination, the care provider exhibits moral awareness when she informs the Smiths about the significance of vaccination against communicable infections. Besides, she strives to educate them on the challenges associated with non-vaccination to the health of Ana and children that associate with Ana. As for her ethical behavior, Dr. Kerr believes that Ana should undergo the vaccination process.

Effectiveness of Communication Approaches in the Case Study

Dr. Kerr emerges as the connection between Ana and her parents on matters of health care since she is Ana’s pediatrician. She and the parents should communicate effectively to make the right treatment option since Ana cannot make decisions about her treatment. The conversation between the care provider and the parents indicates the possibility of effective communication in which Jenna and Chris evidence their disinterests in the vaccination due to the link it has to autism. The care provider strives to approve to the parents the lack of an existential vaccine that leads to autism in children. Regardless of the communication, both parties evidence willingness to select the best option for Ana. On that note, they need to communicate effectively and understand each side to ensure an effective treatment option for the child. Dr. Kerr evidence respect for Mr. and Mrs. Chris’s decision by offering information on the necessity of childhood vaccination. As Ana’s primary care physician, Dr. Kerr informed Ana’s parents about her standpoint and the significance of the vaccination. As a leeway for building trust, communication between a patient and his or her representative with the care provider improves knowledge about the patient’s health status. In the case of disagreement between care providers and parents about a child’s treatment, Hatoková, Masaryk, and Túnyiová (2018) indicate that the parents may decide to seek alternative support from a different care provider or search on the Internet for potential solutions. Thus, effective communication between physicians and parents provide leeway for ensuring the provision of quality, dedicated, and timely care.

Resolving the Ethical Dilemma by Applying Ethical Principles

Ana’s case depicts the four principles of ethical decision-making, which include beneficence, autonomy, justice, and nonmaleficence. Based on the principle of beneficence, Dr. Kerr evidences an interest in ensuring that Ana receives the vaccine. However, she adheres to the interests of Ana’s parents to ensure autonomy. To evidence justice, Dr. Kerr listens to the Smiths fairly and without bias. To solve the ethical dilemma, Dr. Kerr should give the parents more time to decide on Ana’s vaccination. Besides, she should offer the parents books to read more