Ethics and Law in Nursing Case Study 2022

Running head: ETHICAL NURSING 1
Ethics and Law in Nursing
Name
Institution

ETHICAL NURSING 2
First Clinical Scenario
The four ethical principles in nursing and healthcare provide practitioners with the appropriate
guidelines that can help them in making informed decisions during complicated situations
involving patient care (Pietilä et al., 2020). From the provided clinical scenario, the principle of
beneficence was observed partly and ignored partly. Beneficence requires medical practitioners
to deliver care that can benefit a patient in any situation; what benefits one patient may not
benefit another (Butts & Rich, 2019). The principle of beneficence was observed when the
patient was flown from his remote home to a city hospital. The practitioners determined that he
would benefit more at the city hospital. Additionally, the follow-up was done to benefit the
patient and assess his progress. However, the doctors did not consider whether the pressure
garments would benefit him, given that he does not wear shoes.
The principle of non-maleficence guides practitioners to ensure that no harm comes to the patient
or any other people during the delivery of care. No harm could have resulted from the type of
care delivered as the end goal was to ensure a better patient outcome. I also believe that the
principle of justice was observed. This principle requires practitioners to exercise fairness in
medical decisions (Butts & Rich, 2019). The decision to fly the patient to a city hospital was
based on justice as such services are sometimes only preserved for the rich. The case scenario
does not, however, indicate that the patient was involved in any of the decision-making, such as
being flown away to get treatment, in probably a different cultural environment. I believe that the
principle of autonomy was not observed.
Second Clinical Scenario

ETHICAL NURSING 3
In this clinical scenario, the patient expresses her desire to get the HPV vaccination. She believes
that this vaccination is beneficial to her and will help her in fighting the invasion of cervical
cancer. The principle of autonomy, in this case, will require the doctor to respect the decision of
the patient of getting an HPV vaccine. According to Raus et al. (2018), the principle of
autonomy requires a doctor to involve a patient in all clinical decision-making aspects of care
and respect the choices of the patient. A vaccine to prevent the possibility of cervical cancer is
the best treatment option for this patient. The patient has already agreed to the treatment, but the
only impediment is her parents who believe that an HPV vaccine is only required by
promiscuous girls. The doctor must, therefore, make the decision that will ensure that the patient
does not risk developing any HPV infection. The doctor by ensuring this will be acting to benefit
the patient thus observing the principle of beneficence (Johnstone & Facn, 2019). Even though
her parents have not consented to this care, she has the competence and intelligence of
consenting, because she has read a lot about the HPV vaccine from the easily available internet
resources. The doctor failing to give her the vaccine due to her parents’ lack of consent would
potentially bring harm to the patient. The doctor must, therefore, base his decision on the
principle of non-maleficence, which requires that no harm comes to the patient or anyone else.
The doctor must also consider the potential impacts of the parents’ choices on the health of the
patient. If the doctor respects the choices of the parents and the patient later develops any HPV
infection, then the principle of justice will not have been observed.
Third Clinical Scenario
Of the three patients, I believe that Debbie should be invited by the manager to CMP. Based on
everything that she has gone through with miscarriages and a terminated pregnancy in her early
20s, she would massively benefit from the care delivered with the CMP program. The manager