Vaccination Ethics
Vaccination Ethics
Vaccination Ethics
Ethics- Vaccination
Student’s name
Professor’s name
Institution affiliation
Course
Date
2
This case involves two parents, Jenna and Smith, of Ana, a five-year-old baby who stands
out to resist vaccination of their baby whom they had decided to raise naturally. However, Dr.
Kerr is encompassed to execute her obligation as a medical practitioner. Still, the parents'
personal beliefs, which she is bound to consider, hinder her from performing the duties. Dr. Kerr
educative section to Jenna and Smith is not satisfactory to them, and they still uphold their
decision not to vaccinate their baby. However, Dr. Kerr must ensure the safety and autonomy of
her patients based on ethical principles. She is stranded on the decision to take and still morally
Therefore, from the case study description, the ethical dilemma lies in the medical
practitioner's hands-on whether to vaccinate the child. Additionally, the victims of the challenge
are Ana and Dr. Kerr, in that Ana's life or well-being is at stake, and the Kerr's responsibility to
make a moral decision is at her hand. Through the ethical decision-making model, a medical
practitioner has the moral awareness to ensure the most rightful decision is achieved regarding
the underlying challenging situation. First, an ethical medical practitioner should stand to ensure
the client's autonomy or independence on the decision made on them. The medical practitioner is
therefore encompassed to respect the choices that parents make on their child, and consequently,
she has no moral authority to decline their decisions. However, she also has a responsibility to
ensure maximum benefit is achieved on their client's regarding the decision they intend to make.
Therefore, Dr. Kerr must establish a decision that optimally seeks to improve Ana's health and
Additionally, under the moral awareness concept, the medical practitioner should ensure
the least or no harm occurs on their clients due to their decision. Therefore, Dr. Kerr has to
3
provide the decision taken has to avoid risks or minimize risks entirely. Also, Kerr has a
responsibility to promote justice by making a fair decision and ensure equality on the decision to
Through moral awareness, the medical practitioner has to make a moral judgment based
on the evaluation's insights. Therefore, from Kerr's cognitive bias and individual differences with
Ana's parents and the organizational culture, she will make a judgment that best suits the
scenario. Therefore, from these evaluations, Dr. Kerr will make a decision or make a decision
Ethics guides individuals to act in a manner that is considered to be right and as well
directs them to understand the wrong. Therefore, any decision made is based on several factors
that lead to ethical dilemmas or challenges. Thus, the moral problem presented in this is
regarding a subject, their personal goals, personal view on morals, and personality (Leung & Ho,
2020). Therefore, the primary cause of the ethical problem, in this case, is the individual factors.
The particular values held by Ana's parents contribute to the moral issue in that they hinder the
medical practitioner from making a defined decision regarding the situation. Jenna's and Smith's
argument is based on values that they want to naturally raise their child, contrary to Kerr's point
of view. Smith's conservative personality constitutes the individual character contributing to the
dilemma situation.
4
Additionally, ethical decisions can be affected by social factors such as friends, families,
cultural norms, and social media, or the internet. Notably, the internet has played a critical role in
the cause of the underlying ethical problem in the case. Smith's judgment is based on an online
mommy's blog from which it states vaccination has a significant contribution to autism, claims
that Dr. Kerr despises. Therefore, the internet is a leading social factor in this scenario.
Effectiveness of Communication
Communication between medical practitioners and others (medics and patients) should
target promote a balance between two parties and therefore, should focus on disseminating
communicated in the case since she ensured that the client has detailed information regarding an
interactive approach to thoroughly clarifying the necessary information relating to the case's
claims.
The medical practitioner, in this case, communicated expertly in various instances. First,
she gave the parents ample time to explain their understanding of the vaccination process,
indicating effective communication through active listening skills. Additionally, upon listening
to the client's, Dr. Kerr communicated effectively by clarifying through clear and concise
feedback to create rapport. She extensively explained the benefits of vaccination for the children
and the threats for not taking the vaccinations. Additionally, she emphasized on the safety
procedures on vaccination by providing additional reliable medical sources that can be used to
audience. Therefore, various communication approaches should be used and avoided in this
scenario. First, informative communication approaches should be used to make ideas, dangers,
and measures familiar to the victims of the situation and secondly, the educative communication
approach should be used to explain the pathological process's strengths and make clarifications.
attitudes or behavior that is risky in medical field operations. However, prompting the
entertainment methods that can be ignored or not take seriously implicating the process.
and provides a suitable solution for a problem being studied. On the other hand, ineffective
communication escalates conflicts, frustration, and confusion, leading to low morale in daily
operations.
In response to the ethical issue, the medical practitioner took an initiative to educate the
less-informed parent and provided evidence by referring them to a productive site where
adequate information regarding the vaccination can be obtained. The medical practitioner
effectively managed the professional responsibilities and priorities to solve the medical issue by
recognizing her duty to respect the parents' autonomy and standing to make a decision that
optimally benefits the child in the case. Additionally, the health professionals' critical lesson, in
this case, is that they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their clients while considering
6
their level of autonomy and stand for justice for the other parties. Therefore, they are bound to
respect the professional, individual, and legal responsibility of the underlying conditions.
From the evaluation of the case, the medical practitioner should vaccinate the kid to
ensure maximum benefit and minimal harm. Using the four critical ethical principles, the
medical practitioner recognizes that vaccinating the kid outweighs the threats placed by her
parents. The beneficence principle states that an ethical decision should seek to promote a
maximum benefit to the patient (Hubbard & Greenblum, 2019). Therefore, any decision made
should be purposely to place the victim in a better position than she is. From the case study, the
doctor postulates that the children are prone to chronic diseases that later would cause even
death, and by vaccinating, there are increased chances for not contracting the diseases.
Therefore, the benefits attained by the patient for vaccinating supersedes autonomy principle.
Additionally, based on the non-maleficence principle, the doctor's decision should do the
least harm (Steyn & Edge, 2019). Therefore, Dr. Kerr targets to solve threats and do no harm,
justifying the decision to vaccinate. Also, considering the justice principle, the medical decision
should depict an element of fairness and uphold existing laws to provide a just resolution to the
parties and promote equality (Steyn & Edge, 2019). The subject in the case is just five years with
no information on future threats of her parents; there, it would be fair for the medical practitioner
to vaccinate her for future mitigation of health challenges rather than considering the parents'
decisions.
7
This decision makes the doctor's profession more effective with other disciplines by
focusing on their sole role of mitigating problems, saving lives, and promoting an enabling
environment for future generations. Thus, this solution is likely to foster professional
expectations regarding current and future safety of their clients, and leveraging team
References
Hubbard, R., & Greenblum, J. (2019). Parental decision making: The best interest principle,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-019-09373-9
Leung, T. C., & Ho, J. C. (2020). Social responsibility and ethics in health care. Primary Care
Steyn, E., & Edge, J. (2019). Ethical considerations in global surgery. British Journal of Surgery,
106(2), e17-e19.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: