The reluctance of the parents

Running head: HEALTHCARE
Case studies
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

HEALTHCARE1
Case Study 1: Mia Masterson (No 4 Wellbeing street)
1. The main issue identified in this case study is the reluctance of the parents David and
Julian to get their child Mia immunised, and the fact that Mia receives formula
through bottle. Notwithstanding the fact that the government has formed a mandate to
get all children immunised in order to protect them from illnesses, the parents cannot
be forced to participate in immunisation program (Attwell et al., 2018). The parents
have the basic human right to decide the treatment or plan of action that is best for
their child, hence forcing them to vaccinate their child Mia or preventing formula
feeding would be a violation of their human rights owing to the fact that Mia is not in
a state to take decisions about her health. This in turn would be regarded as a major
type medical malpractice and could possibly result in a court case (MacDonald et al.,
2018). The case is also related to ethical principles of autonomy and nonmaleficence.
The autonomy of parents will be violated if they are influenced take decisions
regarding vaccination. Moreover, notwithstanding the good intention of protecting the
child from diseases, forceful vaccination if does any harm to the health and wellbeing
of the child, would violate the principle of non-maleficence or doing no harm
(Hubbard & Greenblum, 2019).
2. The No Jab, No Pay policy had been formulated by the government in 2016 in order
to mandate immunisation of child in all families, such that the families would be
provided the 'Family Allowance' benefit (Paxton, Tyrrell, Oldfield, Kiang & Danchin,
2016). Mandatory immunisation of children is regulated by the National
Immunisation Strategy for Australia 2013-2018 that had been enforced for increasing
the vaccination coverage to all residents (Department of Health, 2016). In addition,
the standard 2.9.1 of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 governs

HEALTHCARE2
different types of infant formula products that are available in the nation (Federal
Register of Legislation, 2017).
3. The chief strategy would focus on offering detailed and complete information about
the objective, advantages, and negative health effects (if any) of mandatory
immunisation to David and Julian. This can be accomplished by preparing brochures
and disseminating them to the parents. Additionally, they will also be asked to attend
counselling sessions. The parents will be educated on the benefits of breast milk and
will also be provided a detailed understanding of the health risks associated with
formula feeling such as, asthma, eczema and acute otitis media (Nguyen et al., 2020).
Moreover, scientific literature and scholarly evidences will also be disseminated to the
parents to help them understand that the risk of autism does not increase with MMR
vaccination (Hviid, Hansen, Frisch & Melbye, 2019).
4. Holistic care approach will focus on educating the parents about the fact that there are
no hidden agendas or financial benefits of different pharmaceutical companies that
develop vaccines. The primary objective will be to display compassion and empathy
towards the parents, while demonstrating a willingness to address their concerns and
apprehensions. The National Immunisation Schedule shall also be given to the parents
that will increase their awareness on the different vaccines that their child requires
from birth till 16 years of age, the dosage of vaccination and the route of
administration.
Case study 2: Taylah Dennison (No 8 Wellbeing Street)
1. The fact that Taylah is not yet an adult and demonstrates risky sexual behaviour
increases legal and ethical complexity of this case. Obtaining approval and consent
from parents having children who are less than 18 years of age is mandatory, while
recommending any diagnostic test or delivering treatment. However, Taylah is not

HEALTHCARE3
sure whether to inform her parents about her involvement in consensual non-protected
sexual intercourse, and the eventual diagnosis of Chlamydia. Thus, not disclosing the
current health condition of Taylah to her parents would be a direct violation of their
human rights and might force them to file a legal complaint. Considering the fact that
Taylah is worried about her parents’ reaction to her risky sexual behaviour and the
recent diagnosis of Chlamydia, disclosure of this sensitive issue might cause violation
of confidentiality (English, 2018). Additionally, influencing her to inform her parents
might also violate her autonomy. Considering the health effects of Chlamydia
infection and the chance of recurrence, withholding information from her parents
might also violate the principle of beneficence or doing good to a patient (Zhang et
al., 2019).
2. As claimed by the Minors (Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW) legislation all
children who are aged 14 years or more are given the authority to decide for their
health and wellbeing, based on their responsible behaviour, understanding capability,
and amount of maturity, all of which are generally not confused with the actual age of
a person (NSW Government, 2015). The Australian government also recognises the
rule of Gillick competence that had been developed following the case of Gillick v
West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (Olarinde & Bamidele, 2016). This
rule elaborates on the fact that authority of parents over a child decreases gradually,
with an increase in competence and capability of the child to take decisions. Another
significant legislation related to this case study is the Consent to Medical Treatment
and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA), which provides the right to children, aged less
than 16 years to provide agreement to any medical treatment, notwithstanding the
significance of obtaining consent from their parentages.