The Ethical And Legal Dilemma

People from all walks of life face many ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas have consequences. Our worldview determines how we deal with these dilemmas, and guides us to the right decisions. In this essay, I will examine an ethical issues through my Christian worldview. I will also present other viewpoints, and compare them to mine.

Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all

If a Jehovah witness comes into the hospital in need of a blood transfusion the doctors and nurses must respect the patient’s wishes not to have a blood transfusion.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the characteristics, values and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witness group. It will discuss their reasoning for refusal to accept blood transfusions. The paper will elaborate on the best approach to offer appropriate care, advice and education while treating patients with respect in regards to their religious beliefs. British Journal of Nursing (2009) suggests that good, honest communication, without any element of coercion or scare tactics, is the key in the management of Jehovah’s Witness patients.

Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.

When it comes to saving someone’s life or respecting a cultural belief, the best advice would be to respect the client’s wishes. For instance, if a nurse has a patient who is an unconscious Jehovah witness and is in need of a blood transfusion, it is important that the nurse recognizes this belief and respects the

Notably, Jehovah Witness patients’ religious teachings prohibit their believers from Blood transfusion, euthanasia, autopsy and Artificial insemination. These medical practices are against the Biblical teachings of the Jehovah Witness since they consider them to be unholy. Further, they believe the medical interventions to interfere with God’s intentions for human life hence they disallow their followers from practicing

“Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see”—Mark Twain. Health care is a profession that should epitomize kindness. Cultural competence, being open-minded to other cultures, is essential for effective and kind healthcare in our current multicultural population. This case analysis will examine the ethical dilemmas, moral theories, principles, alternative actions, and give a recommendation about the morally best action for the case “Confronting a fetal abnormality” by Karen Peterson-Iyer.

Julian Savulescu and Richard W. Momeyer, wrote an article expressing their theories on informed consent being based on rational beliefs. The article constructed around Jehovah Witnesses rejecting blood transfusions, and how it is theoretically irrational. Both pressed the reasoning of irrationality due to fear being based on an interpretation inconsistent with all passages of the Bible and Christian practices. Thus leading to the concussion Jehovah Witnesses are uninformed of the conflicting Biblical passages, and not fully autonomous in their decision making. Suggesting when patients act on their autonomy while regarding medical care, it must derive from rational beliefs or it will be false autonomy.

Reverend Jim voluntarily came into the emergency room with gastric discomfort and was restrained by hospital orderlies to be examined against his will. This examination supposedly led to Reverend Jim’s recovery of a gastric bleed that may have cost him his life. In this paper I will explain through ethical theories why the doctor’s paternal intervention of Jim was not justified even if it saved Jim’s life. This will be explained through ethical theories of justification. Counterpoints in favor of the ethics of Jim’s restraint will also be discussed.

For this paper I interviewed a fairly new nurse who faced an ethical dilemma involving medical treatment of a Jehovah Witness. The dilemma she faced was that her patient was dying and needed a blood transfusion in order to survive. The patient was a 29-year-old female who was pregnant with her third child. She was brought to the hospital suffering from the effects of a car accident. It was suspected that she was bleeding internally as well as having a broken arm, and contusions to her head. The nurse informed the patient of the critical nature of her condition and that the plan of care for her was an immediate blood transfusion.

There are several churches today that object to medical treatment. At one point in time with nearly seventeen million active members, Jehovah’s Witness was the largest of these groups. Although, historically Jehovah Witnesses objected to a wide range of medical practices, today their only objection is to blood transfusions. The theology of the church that opposes blood transfusions is based on Bible verses that are found in Genesis 9:3–6, Leviticus 17:10, 11, and Acts 15:22–29 and 21:25, which require abstinence ‘‘from blood’’ and prohibit eating ‘‘meat that has its lifeblood still in it.’’ For the Jehovah Witness to accept a blood transfusion, according to the church’s teachings, constitutes eating blood and tramples on the sacrifice of Christ.

According to Pozgar (2016), “Spirituality implies that there are purpose and meaning to life; spirituality generally refers to faith in a higher being” (p. 52). In the health care settings, patients and providers need to face unique situations in where sometimes their spirituality is their only hope to cope with the results. In the present days, with an emphasis on a holistic approach, it is very important to consider the spiritual and religious preferences of patients. However, not only spirituality and religion can be a support for patients, also, patient’s beliefs can affect their treatments and health care providers need to learn how to approach this type of situations with ethics. As

According to the first principle, nonmaleficience, it would not be appropriate as a professional to practice medicine based on his or her own beliefs and not consider the patients feelings about the operation. In this particular case, regarding religious constrictions the doctor must decide if the patients’ needs outweigh the ethical belief of nonmaleficience. Asserting empathy in this case could prove to be a problem. How does a person wholly understand the beliefs of another when they have not been exposed to those beliefs and culture that supplied this person with their values of living? Understanding a patient’s background can significantly impact a decision. If a doctor were to treat a Jehovah Witness with blood they need to understand the impact they would be having on their patient’s life.

Ethics can be dangerous to your career. The danger may come not from your own ethics but from the ethics of people around you and the organization of which you are a part. Employees have various moral decisions to make. Many of these decisions should be made on the basis of our moral obligations, but sometimes the morally preferable action could require courage and be performed beyond the call of duty. One defense against involvement in wrongdoing is vocalizing when there are unethical practices being made. While being prepared for organizational challenges that will inevitably test your personal values, moral beliefs, and commitment may be doing the right thing, is it ethical when one’s job is on the line?