Nursing Ethical Case Study

Running head: NURSING ETHICAL CASE 1
Nursing Ethical Case
Name
Institution

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 2
Nursing Ethical Case
Ethical Issues Raised
The case study presents a myriad of ethical issues concerning the handling and treatment
issues in the case. Amos a high school student in the same school, level, and year underwent
discriminative treatment based on the location he resided in despite being a student in the same
school to the students that received treatment. Some of the students with a similar illness were
admitted at the facility whose increase led to the insufficiency of the medical supplies thus
leading to the limiting of the patients up for treatment. Amos was denied medical services on the
point that he was not a boarding within the facility of the school which led to his subsequent
suffering and eventual death. The case raises serious ethical challenges on the side of the medical
professionals who are bound by ethical standards not to discriminate patients while dispensing
their duties.
Basic Principles of Medical Ethics
The medical ethics ride on the four basic principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-
maleficence, and justice all related toward the issues of fairness, respect, and honesty. The
principle of justice dictates that professionals should try and be as fair as possible whenever
dispensing treatment to patients and handling medical resources related to patient care
(Berglund, 2012). In this respect, one should be able to justify their actions in every situation.
Amos suffered a victim of lack of justice, a principle expected to be observed and kept close to
the heart of medical professionals. The aspect of fair treatment and proper use of resources did
not occur thus leaving Amos, a student in the same school to suffer from cholera leading to his
death. The medical professional ought to have given him medication despite his residence in a

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 3
mutually exclusive location. Fair treatment calls for handling patients care and concerns in the
same manner towards yielding superior care for individuals (Ozolins & Grainger, 2015).
Non-maleficence principle on the other hand calls for no harm to patients as a bedrock of
medical ethics. Further, the principle states that in all situations, health workers ought to strive to
cause little or no harm to patients and use the right means to handling patients towards bettering
their experience. However, the principle remained in violation in the case of Amos who was out
rightly denied medication on the basis of not residing in the same boarding facility as the rest of
the students (Barret, Ortmann, Dawson, Saenz, Reis & Bolan, 2016). First, the patient suffered
from cholera due to exposure in the same environment as the rest of the students. In such a
situation, he was entitled treatment accorded to the rest despite the difference in location of
residence. The denial and subjection to no medical in itself is a harm added on top of the pain
from the cholera outbreak that affected him. Consequently, it led to the dehydration, suffering,
and eventual death of Amos on the way home to seek assistance from the family. The act was a
violation of the principle which led to increased harm on the patient.
Beneficence principle
The principle states that health professionals must strive to provide and improve patient’s
health and do good to patients in every situation. The principle was largely violated in the case
where Amos did not have the chance for improvement of his health at the facility. Instead, he
was denied the slightest medication due to the increased number of patients (Banks & Gallagher,
2009). At least, he deserved to be treated and given a first aid observance instead of being turned
away as a student not residing within the school’s boarding facility. The act denied proper health
to the patient leading to a complicated situation.

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 4
Australian Code of Conduct for Doctors
The Australian code of conduct has several deliberations for doctors in handling patients
and self conduct. The code of good medical practice describes the expectations for all doctors to
provide the best value to patients in the process of dispensing their duties. The code tasks doctors
to treat patients as their first concern and practice safe and effective treatment (Atkins, de Lacey
& Britton, 2012). Moreover, it tasks doctors to protect health of individuals and community and
focus on patient-centered treatment. Further, it talks on the essence of communication with
patients in enabling proper treatment and experience.
None of the code of conduct aspects were followed in the first case study. First, no
observance whatsoever was conducted on Amos despite the type of pain he was experiencing at
the time. No communication was accorded to him at the time but rather faced a dismissal based
on the fact that he did not reside within the boarding facility. According to the principle, patient
care remains the main concern of health providers (Paramedics Australasia, 2017).
However, the case illustrated a neglect of patient and case of discrimination based on the
location of the patient who at the same time doubled as a student in the facility that they were
addressing the cholera case. As such, doctors are supposed to minimize risks among individuals
seeking healthcare in bettering their experience (Butts & Rich, 2016). Amos suffered with the
cholera case and the risk of further pain grew by the time leading to untold suffering that led to
his eventual death. Thus, the case recorded the worst experience and violation of the ethical code
of conduct.
Human Dignity
Human beings are meant to be respected and enjoy the human right where the rest of the
rights are defined. In this respect, human life remains important and crucial thus need to be

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 5
handled efficiently and within the shortest time possible. Dignity refers to the self-worth, respect,
and empowerment of individuals in line with human rights observance (Medical Board of
Australia, 2017). In such a case, issues raised by human beings, more so related to their well-
being ought to be respected and accorded within the shortest time span. The consideration
remained absent in the case which led to the loss of life.
Amos was discriminated and treated as less human as evidenced in the turning away by
the doctors who disregarded him as they concentrate on the patients from the boarding facility.
Respect for human life ought to be paramount and accorded without discrimination (Morrison &
Furlong, 2013). However, the state records a different scene where the individuals ended up
lacking a preference on his human worth as he was turned away and had to seek healthcare from
a far and distant location that led to further complication. The right to fair treatment is a
fundamental principal for human beings in the wake of a disease break-up case (Beauchamp &
Childress, 2013).
Right to Care
Human beings are superior creations that ought to be respected and their lives preserved
at all costs. The case records the situation of Amos who despite being a human being and open to
enjoy the right to care remained in suffering as the medical team concentrated on the students
residing within the school. The case demonstrated a case of reluctance and failure of the doctors
to uphold the right to protection of life. Medical practitioners are by profession described as
helpers who ought to go out of their way to assist individuals regardless of their status
(Australian Association of Social Workers, 2017). Persons may be limited to care if their
condition requires specialized care beyond what a medical facility can offer. However, the case
recorded a reduction of resources but not insufficient staff to handle the case and even secure a

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 6
referral chance for the excess patients in worse case. The lack of action indicates a failure on the
side of the medical personnel who are to blame for the death of the student.
Recommendations
Health is a fundamental requirement upon which human beings rely to stay alive. As such
it is a paramount provision that ought to be accorded to human beings by medical practitioners.
Respect for life even in the worst case ought to occur as well as responsible acting towards
saving life. Acts of discrimination are highly discouraged in the medical field that ought to
deliver quality service to all. On the other hand, medical personnel are bound by their ethical
codes of conduct to act responsibly towards saving lives and improving patient health status.
The case of Amos provides the worst scenario where a student despite having a different
residence is discriminated from the treatment of a common disease in the environment. Amos
ought to have been treated according to the principle and codes of ethics that demand the use of
all possible resources towards ensuring patient care. The blame for the consequence of lack of
care can be accorded to the facility managers that turned away other persons save for the students
that resided within the facility.
The disease was common and thus called for expansion of services and seeking of referral
services to cater for the growing numbers. Amos should have been given first aid care and
handled on an out-patient basis as long as his health was out of danger. It would have been easier
for him to buy drugs in outside facility having been diagnosed and given necessary details for
treatment (Townsend & Luck, 2013). The case of Amos records some of the largest violations in
the medical fraternity that harms and reduces the quality of patient care. There is a need for
reexamination of the case and holding persons liable to pay for the damages and seek

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 7
improvement in further handling of future challenges. Heath is a paramount need and right for
human beings that need to be accorded with the highest regard.

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 8
References
Atkins, K., de Lacey, S., & Britton, B. (2012). Ethics and Law for Australian Nurses (2nd ed.).
PortMelbourne: CUP. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139162135
Australian Association of Social Workers (2017). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from:
Available at: http://www.medicalboard.gov.au/Codes-Guidelines-Policies/Code-of-conduct.aspx
Banks, S. & Gallagher, A. (2009). Ethics in Professional Life: virtues for health and social care.
NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan
Barrett, D., Ortmann, L., Dawson, A., Saenz, C., Reis, A. & Bolan, G. (2016) Public Health
Ethics:cases spanning the globe. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-23847-0
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York, NY:
OxfordUniversity Press.
Berglund, C. (2012). Ethics for health care. (4th ed.). South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University
Press.
Butts, J. & Rich, K. (2016). Nursing Ethics: Across the Curriculum and Into Practice. (4th ed).
BurlingtonMA: Jones & Bartlett Learning
https://www.aasw.asn.au/practitioner-resources/code-of-ethics
Medical Board of Australia (2017). Good Medical Practice: a code of conduct for doctors in
Australia.
Morrison, E. & Furlong, B. (Eds.). (2013). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century
(3rd ed.).Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Ozolins, J., & Grainger, J. (2015). Foundations of Health Care Ethics: Theory to Practice.
PortMelbourne, Vic.: Cambridge University Press.

NURSING ETHICAL CASE 9
Paramedics Australasia (2017). Code of Conduct. Available at:
https://www.paramedics.org/code-ofconduct/
Townsend, R., & Luck, M. (2013). Applied Paramedic Law and Ethics: Australia and New
Zealand.Chatswood: Churchill Livingstone. Available at:
http://www.acu.eblib.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1724010