Ethical Health Care Issues Essay

wellnesscargon ethics involves making hygienic researched and take onate decisions much or less checkup treatments, while taking into consideration a longanimouss beliefs and wishes regarding all told aspects of their health. The healthc ar industry, above any other, has a high regard for the issues surrounding the welfare of their unhurrieds. This power e rattlingwhere a patient ofs well universe creates a mandatory need for all healthcare organizations to adopt an ethics committee. The committees goal is to establish a written code of ethics that lucubrate the policies and procedures that determine proper action for all employees. There are many honor able issues that may trick out in regards to a patients healthcare.Treating patients with certain religious beliefs pose all-important(a) honest issues in the field of healthcare. This paper will describe an ethical health care issue concerning refusal of care, such as a gunstock transfusion. It will cover the intr avenous feeding ethical principles as they apply to healthcare suppliers and patients nears. It is important that health care workers save a rudimentary sagaciousness of nobles Witnesses philosophy about rail line transfusion so that as professionals we female genitals be proactive in their management.Ethical Health Care IssueIn all areas of practice, physicians come into contact with Jehovahs Witnesses and their refusal to accept rip transfusion, even when it means saving their lives. The Jehovahs Witness faith creates some challenges for physicians caring for its members. The ethical principles of autonomy versus beneficence come into conflict when a physician believes a transfusion is in the trump out interest of the patient, but the patient refuses. Legal precedence provides a backdrop. In addition, Panico, Jenq, & Brewster (2011) article states, there was a possibility involving a woman who had take oned for examination of a fibroid tumor under anesthesia, but withh eld consent for r sense of thetumor. While sedated, she underwent resection of the tumor that led to complications. She sued and the judge ruled in her favor, establishing the notion that every human being should have the right to decide what is d peerless with his or her own body. Moreover, this premise gave any individual the right to refuse treatment if he or she understands the risks a Jehovahs Witness has the right to refuse a line of work transfusion.This ruling set a precedent for informed consent. In 1990, the Canadian case of Malette v Shulman described an emergency department physician who gave a logical argument transfusion to an unconscious patient who was in hypovolemic shock. Per report, the patient had a signed wallet card that identified her as a Jehovahs Witness, although it was undated and unwitnessed. The wallet card, is considered a legal document which, stated that she did not demand to receive a blood transfusion under any circumstances (Lantos, Matlock, & W endler, 2011). Furthermore, when the patients young lady arrived and asked that the transfusion be stopped, the physician did not comply. The physician argued that there was no way of knowing if the patient had changed her mind in the minutes before the car accident and then he was duty march to save her brio (Lantos, Matlock, & Wendler, 2011). The court found the physician guilty of battery.Although it is easy to draw on emotion to argue against the ruling in this case, the verdict has not been overturned. This case illustrates the current teaching to todays physicians, who are taught to respect patients autonomy and preferences for their own bodies (Lantos, Matlock, & Wendler, 2011). Jehovahs Witness have been known to refuse transfusions with packed red blood cells to treat their life-threatening diseases. Medical professionals must consider patient has autonomy of thought, intention, and action when making decisions regarding health care procedures. To comply with patients w ishes medical professionals could offer fresh frozen plasma and platelets as an alternative. Furthermore, Jehovahs Witnesses number over one million in the United States and at least six million worldwide. Witnesses believe in morose and literal interpretation of the Bible, which leads them to reject some aspects of modern medical care (Doyle, 2002).Medical professionals have discussed in open forums ethical decisions they are required to make while taking care of a dying patient who refused to accept a blood transfusion. Data suggests they struggled to relate to someone who would take some blood products, butnot others, and who are willing to risk death over a red blood cell transfusion. Refusal of blood transfusions became common practice only after a 1945 church decision (Mann, Votto, & Kambe, 1992). Indeed, Jehovahs Witnesses interpret these sections of the Bible disparately and if a member accepts blood into their veins, they are shunned and forfeit their social status in the faith community and eternal life. The ordination had enforced shunning and social isolation by Witnesses own family members, relatives, and friends, ultimately leading to expulsion from the religion (Doyle, 2002).Similarly, research suggest that the health care provider must consider four main areas when evaluating justice and the four areas are fair distribution of stingy resources, competing needs, rights and obligations, and potential conflicts with established legislation (Gillon, 1994). In considering the many ethical dilemmas associated with Jehovahs Witnesses and their refusal to accept blood transfusion have medical professionals focusing on the ways in which treatments or interventions violates accepted norms of conduct of social science research. Physicians must be aware of the growing diversity of values and beliefs among Jehovahs Witnesses. Some of the most intractable ethical problems arise from conflicts among principles and the necessity of trading one off again st the other. The match of such principles in concrete situations is the ultimate ethical act (House, 1993, p. 168).Evaluation involves at least four levels of social-political interaction- with government and other agency policy makers who commission evaluation. Evaluation has to operate in this multilayered context of different interests, providing information to inform decisions while remaining independent of the policies and programs themselves (House, 1993, p. 170). More importantly, the weight of ethical judgment is thus put on experimental research to justify meeting ethical standards (Panico, Jenq, & Brewster, 2011). Resource allocation is a major issue that physicians are confronted with when dealing with Jehovahs Witness allocation. Beneficence requires that the procedure be provided with the intent of doing good for the patient involved. As described above if a patient refuses a blood transfusion and opt for an alternative procedure that costs more it can prove problemat ic (Panico, Jenq, & Brewster, 2011).When fraternity thinks of the greater good, this argument poses a challenge to the principles of patient autonomy that we also value. In a society in which medical resourcesare costly, benefits will always need to be weighed against the potential cost to two the patient and society thus creating ethical challenges. Finally, the care of a Jehovahs Witness with life threatening illnesses requires a multidisciplinary and planned approach. These patients suffer with certain diseases and are often anemic and must be prepared to deal with this issue in both outpatient settings and during an acute crisis. Clinicians must view each patient as an individual who may have varying thoughts about transfusions of the multiple different blood products that are available. Therefore, medical practices today need to continue to open early lines of communication with these patients.Providing adequate information and educating the patient about realities and obtain ing informed consent before subjecting a patient to any test, procedure, or surgery is very essential. It is vital to the optimal care of a Jehovahs Witness patient. It is necessary that dialysis unit nurses and social workers have conversations with patients about their beliefs on blood products. Discussing a patients wishes, understanding their basis for these decisions, and discussing risks, benefits, and alternatives that can be used in both emergent and non-emergent situations is crucial to preparing for more urgent situations, when these conversations often are not possible.ConclusionsTo many Jehovahs Witnesses, the consequences of accepting a blood transfusion can be worse than death itself. Not every Jehovahs Witness patient abides by the very(prenominal) beliefs regarding the acceptance of blood products. These patients can be managed through careful planning and open lines of communication betwixt physicians and patients. Understanding the premise behind the beliefs of p atients who are Jehovahs Witnesses is critical to beginning conversations and truly understanding the patient. Ultimately, when a patient establishes what they will accept, as clinicians, ethically we must optimize the care we provide in spite of appearance their wishes about blood products. Frequent and open dialogue is essential for enhancing care for a Jehovahs Witness.As an alternative to violating a patients autonomy some physicians and some hospitals are more comfortable with bloodless procedures and patients can be referred to these centers if necessary for specialty care. Overall, health care professionals should be able to provideethical health care to patients who are Jehovahs Witnesses at any hospital or community office, but must continue to be educated and aware of their beliefs and respect their wishes and the jounce these may have on organizing and providing their care. If these considerations are neglected one can surely expect ethical breaches or dilemmas as inev itable.ReferencesDoyle D. Blood transfusions and the Jehovahs Witness patient. Am J Ther. 20029(5)417424. Gillon, R. (1994). Informed consent an ethical obligation or legal compulsion. Retrieved from http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2840885/ House, R. (1993). Ethics in evaluation. Retrieved from http//www.uk.sagepub.com/gray3e/study/chapter12/Book%20chapters/Ethics_in_Evaluation.pdf168-170. Lantos J, Matlock A, Wendler D. Clinician integrity and limits to patient autonomy. JAMA.2011305(5)495499. (Lantos, Matlock, & Wendler, 2011). Mann M, Votto J, Kambe J, McNamee M. Management of the severely anemic patient who refuses transfusion lessons learned during the care of the Jehovahs Witness. Ann medical intern Med. 1992117(12)10421048. Panico, M. L., Jenq, G. Y., & Brewster, U. C. (2011). When a patient refuses life-saving care. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 58(4), 647-653.