The Ethics Of Health Ethics

Nurses are constantly challenged by changes which occur in their practice environment and are under the influence of internal or external factors. Due to the increased complexity of the health system, nowadays nurses are faced with ethical and legal decisions and often come across dilemmas regarding patient care. From this perspective a good question to be raised would be whether or not nurses have the necessary background, knowledge and skills to make appropriate legal and ethical decisions. Even though most nursing programs cover the ethical and moral issues in health care, it is questionable if new nurses have the depth of knowledge and understanding of these issues and apply them in their practice

According to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, the Affordable care Act from President Obama gives consumers more options and benefits when seeking coverage from insurance company. It offers lowering cost as well as gets more access to high quality of care. This law creates Patient’s Bill of Rights that is very effective to protect consumers from any abuses or fraud from insurance company. Some preventive services are available to many Americans especially Medicare recipients at no cost. Not just that, they also receive a special offer of 50 percent discount for any well-known drugs in the market place under Medicare named “donut hole.” The Affordable Care Act helps other organizations and programs to convince healthcare providers

Along the same idea, the justices also stated that the rights of the people are only applicable when they go along with the common good. Jacobson was attempting to exercise his rights that could have led to potential harm to others. The Court also stated in the ruling that the common good “applies to the right of society to protect itself from epidemics and that legislative bodies have authority to choose the means toward that end” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). The final statement in the ruling of Jacobson v. Massachusetts was that the police power had to adhere to four standards to determine if the 14th amendment is void when it comes to the good of public health. First, the issue, which in this case was vaccination, has to be a necessary measure to aid officials in stopping a disease outbreak. Second, the issue has to be reasonable and lead to desirable results. The third standard is whatever the public health officials propose, the benefit must outweigh the hassle to citizens. And finally, the issue should follow the ethical principle of nonmaleficence and should not cause harm to anyone.

This report will be analysing the policies and legislations guiding the service user and the organisation caring for them. The importance of ethics in social care will also be explained .the case study will be discussed using the policies and legislations provided by the government.

In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that states could “compel vaccination for the common good.” Historically, the safeguarding of the public health has been the chief responsibility of state and local governments. The authority to enact laws applicable to the safety of the public health originates from the state 's general police powers. With regard to communicable disease outbreaks, these powers may encompass the enactment of compulsory inoculation laws. Although present-day U.S. policies typically oblige children receive vaccinations before entering school, many states permit exemptions due to religious, personal, philosophical or health reasons. Still there is also Federal jurisdiction over public health issues as well.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is viewed as the seminal case regarding state’s or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers.

The healthcare system underwent reformation in 2010 in the form of The Affordable Care Act. The main goal of the ACA was to extend health care throughout the nation; irrespective of this intention, some people regard the Affordable Care Act as being paternalistic. Chapter 9 covers the issue of how ethical the imposition of new restrictions on people by the ACA is.

Over one hundred years removed from this decision, this case is still discussed and analyzed in scholarly works, indicating the sustained relevance of the tensions and conflicts. The U.S. Supreme Court cited this case 69 times through 2004 (5). In addition to granting compulsory vaccination at the state level, Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been used to justify public health initiatives ranging from quarantine of diseased individuals to mandatory motorcycle helmet laws (6). Despite establishing a legal precedent for mandatory vaccinations, resistance to government required vaccination persists, often from ideological, cultural, or religious beliefs, and many states have amended the vaccination laws to allow for exemptions (6). It is therefore important for public health to recognize its powers are not only a legal action, but also a moral obligation to consider individual preferences.

In 1809 Massachusetts was the first state to require citizens to be vaccinated against smallpox (Nelson, 2012). The law was in place without any major challenges until 1902 when Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and took his legal case all the way to the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional liberties could be encroached on when the safety of the general public is concerned (Nelson, 2012). That court decision put into place precedence that the health safety of the greater community should be considered ahead of the autonomy of the individual.

One, is distributive justice. Burdens and benefits are not equally distributed when select individuals within a population choose to not get vaccinated. This exercise of autonomy (when not medically indicated) conflicts with the harm principle by placing the health of others in danger. While some anti-vaxxers frame mandatory vaccinations as a liberty issue, the Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), that mandatory vaccination laws are “a legitimate exercise of a state’s police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens” and is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. Furthermore, mandatory vaccinations can be justified by utilitarianism. Vaccinating those who are capable of receiving vaccinations maximizes utility by promoting the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people – vaccines are a social good. In assessing the risks and benefits of vaccinations, the good (i.e., beneficence) produced by vaccinations, outweighs the

Identify and explain two ethical issues/dilemmas in healthcare as identified and discussed in the scholarly literature (ProQuest, EBSCO,

There has been a sharp increase in articles in recent years addressing ethics in healthcare with the rapid reforms and the millions added to healthcare coverage. The American Medical Association published just this month an article titled, “Ethics in Expanding Health Coverage through the private market”. (2015 #13). As this may not address specific compliance concerns, it does present an over all concern for the implications of the ACA, primarily being that this law does not guarantee coverage for all citizens and the subsequent burden placed on those who choose to purchase under its protection. The influx of funds to private markets gives them increased political power. It is the use of this power to examine and include into compliance

Care Ethics (Feminist Ethics) is the importance of caring relationships in life whether its human or animal related. The main goal of care ethics is to maintain and promote caring relationships. Care ethics involves helping both yourself and the world around you. It gives you the motivation to care for others beside yourself. Care ethics according to the article is more a “general approach” than a theory in regards to other ethical practices. The goal of care ethics is to show that women have the same equal rights as men and that they both have freedoms of their own. This is important as this is helping to address equality among the human race. Care ethics as a whole revolves around emotions.

In the last three decades HIV/ AIDS has become the one of the most notorious and widely spread diseases in the modern world. Its discovery in the late seventies prompted worldwide concern. The one thing that has become the most bothersome thing about the HIV/ AIDS epidemic is prevention. Prevention or stopping the transmission of the diseases is hindered by factors such as: denial or non-acceptance by infected persons, unsafe sex, and non-disclosure by infected persons to their at risk sexual partner(s). According to Alghazo, Upton, and Cioe (2011):

The health care industry continually deals with the lives of individuals and is bound by the ethical and legal aspects that influence decisions of health care professionals in their clinical practice. This essay aims to discuss the various issues and ethical dilemmas that arise with regards to the consent of consumers. In the attempt to explore these points, different literatures are used to shed light on this topic. This paper begins by defining what consent is and the role of nurses or the health care team in being an advocate of the patient when requiring consent. It moves on with the discussion of ethical frameworks, which are recognized nationally and internationally, as these carry significant influences in health care decision-making. The essay also brings out the essence of ethical theories and its relevance to consent giving. It then tackles the similarities and differences of the Code of Ethics and ethical guidelines relevant to both nursing and midwives as both professions work closely in the care of mothers, children and families. Issues and views from experienced professionals in these fields are presented and critically compared. It then considers both ethical and legal aspects, which seeks arguments and rational implications. The last topic points to the social and spiritual factors pertinent to consent that impact the society particularly on the care of patients and concludes by summarising discussed points and arguments about consent.