Introduction
The case study is about parents’ perception on the vaccination of children and the role health care providers should play to ensure that parents make informed decisions. The key facts presented in the case study are parents’ concern about vaccine safety, misinformation from unreliable sources, and the importance of health care providers in providing reliable information for parents. This paper addresses the ethical dilemma of vaccination, whether a health care provider should intervene when parents decide not to vaccinate their children and the issue of consent.
To begin with, it is necessary to provide a summary of the case. There are Ana and her parents, Jenna and Chris Smith, although they acknowledge the importance of raising a healthy child, they exposed her to increased risks of contracting fatal pathogens by opting not to vaccinate her. The parents base the decision of their research on online “mommy” blogs that usually have information that lack relevant evidence. Dr. Kerr effectively informed the parents why it is essential to have their child vaccinated and recommended reliable resources where they can learn more about vaccines, including benefits, safety, and risks.
The Issue
The issue presenting an ethical dilemma in the case study involves Dr. Kerr trying to ensure that he respects Jenna and Chris Smith’s parental rights and autonomy and prevents Ana and other children from fatal pathogens. Another ethical dilemma may arise about whether or not informed consent should be provided before vaccination. Indeed, Ana’s parents have the right to decide how they will raise their child and whether she will be vaccinated or not, possibly based on their beliefs and concerns about immunizations. However, healthcare providers advocate for a healthy community and the greater good for everyone in the case of a disease outbreak. Although Dr. Kerr knows the needs and health benefits of vaccinations, he cannot coerce Ana’s parents to have her vaccinated. This ethical issue affects Dr. Kerr and Ana, where the former has to decide to impact the latter’s health and future wellbeing significantly. The issue of obtaining a consent from parents for vaccination of children is debatable as adults may not have relevant education to decide what to do in the cases like Ana’s.
Ethical Decision-Making Model
An ethical decision-making model is an instrumental tool that provides critical thinking mechanisms and approaches to ethical dilemmas resolutions. The model allows health care providers to develop a capacity to evaluate ethical dilemmas and settle on ethical decisions. The model comprises three components: moral awareness, judgment, and ethical behavior. Moral awareness involves an individual’s ability to identify and appreciate ethical aspects of their decisions. Lechasseur et al. (2018) indicate that moral awareness is the person’s capability to recognize moral issues within a situation. In the case, it is seen that Dr. Kerr have been aware of Ana’s parents and their perspective on vaccination as she listened to them and provided an effective explanation in favor of vaccination. It can be said that she recognized that Ana’s parents are unwilling to vaccinate her and tried to convince them otherwise. Such recognition requires people to be conscious of potential benefits or harm to others. Notably, people, especially health care providers, are mandated to observe ethics when evaluating decisions, they must make while executing their duties. Therefore, they must pay attention to possible ethical issues surrounding their profession to alleviate the possibility of making unethical decisions.
Any ethical dilemma situation faced by health care providers necessitates moral judgment. According to Lechasseur et al. (2018), moral judgment involves formulating and evaluating possible morally justifiable solutions to moral issues. The component of the ethical decision-making model calls for reasoning through possible options and potential outcomes to determine the ethically sound ones. In the health care profession, moral judgment concerns actions that are likely to cause some harm or threatens autonomy. Equally, it can be triggered by actions whose consequences can impact others as well as the actors (Wilkinson & McBride, 2022). In the case study, there is already a moral judgment made by Dr. Kerr as she started to explain the benefits of vaccination, referring that what Ana’s parents is doing is morally wrong. From the perspective of the doctor, Ana’s parents are doing unethical decision as they are exposing their child to high risks of infectious diseases harming her immune system.
Moral awareness and moral judgment in every situation lead to ethical behavior. According to Lechasseur et al. (2018), ethical behavior involves taking actions that focus on doing what is right. It is about applying moral principles in moral situations, for example, when providing care services to patients. Examples of ethical behaviors in health care settings may include adhering to set standards and code of conduct, professionalism, accountability, and communicating effectively. In the case study, Dr. Kerr needs to consult with her colleagues regarding what she can do to convince parents to vaccinate their daughter. However, if it does not work, she cannot do anything as parents have already decided and their decision should be respected. Moreover, the good ethical behavior may include to address the question with the ones who can potentially convince Ana’s parents like doctors with higher position in the hospital (Wilkinson & McBride, 2022). These actions can be possible solutions for this dilemma about vaccination.
Indeed, what Dr. Kerr did as a professional facing the issue was effective. Although it was not successful, the doctor managed to provide a full explanation by using examples from the past of healthcare (e.g., Haemophilus influenzae type b) and referring to vaccine safety profiles. It can be said that the doctor is well-informed about vaccination and its potential risks, as such Dr. Kerr could communicate with Ana’s parents politely and without any biases. Here, the importance of being polite is key in communication between health care provider and parents. Otherwise, parents may not rely on healthcare professionals at all if they refuse to listen their concerns regarding vaccination. It is crucial to allow such parents like Ana’s to express their thoughts even though they may seem non-professional and absurd (Rus & Groselj, 2021). Dr. Kerr used active communication by listening and providing relevant information to the parents, yet it did not work. Therefore, Dr. Kerr could have use authority of her colleagues and expand the issue for the whole healthcare organization. It can be assumed that if the organization itself and authoritative doctors would have involved in the dilemma, Ana’s parents would be convinced to vaccinate her.
Moreover, there are many factors that contribute to the issue of vaccination. For example, online blogs that write about risks of vaccination and call parents not to vaccinate their children. Such blogs do not have good evidence for banning vaccination and mostly rely on some rumors about vaccinated children being autistic or ill (Wilkinson & McBride, 2022). In addition, vaccination is a debatable topic on mass media, making people believe that it can be harmful for babies. These factors contribute to the rising issue of vaccination, increasing number of people who refuse to get vaccination and vaccinate their children.
Conclusion
The case study illustrates that there is a need for the complex solution involving the whole healthcare organization. A single healthcare professional cannot convince parents to vaccinate their child as it may seem not trustworthy. This is because the parents have searched from the Internet a variety of alternative opinions about vaccination and their concerns were justified by online blogs of several mothers (Rus & Groselj, 2021). Therefore, it seems reasonable for a doctor to consult with other colleagues and the administration and to have a round table for an effective communication with parents.
Parents turn to the doctor for information that is balanced and based on science when they have queries about their child and vaccinations. Therefore, it is crucial to remember that the parents must be fully informed of the material dangers, including those associated with the vaccination itself as well as those associated with opting not to vaccinate their child. Health professionals need to inform parents about the potential hazards of the disease’s children are receiving vaccinations against, the benefits of vaccination, and the potential risks of the vaccine itself. Dr. Kerr could provide vaccine information sheets in print to Ana’s parents. It is also significant to explain parents the drawn-out and laborious process of developing vaccines, which frequently requires years and a variety of public and commercial collaborations before the FDA approves the vaccine for use.
References
Lechasseur, K., Caux, C., Dollé, S., & Legault, A. (2018). Ethical competence: an integrative review. Nursing ethics, 25(6), 694-706.
Rus, M., & Groselj, U. (2021). Ethics of vaccination in childhood—A framework based on the four principles of biomedical ethics. Vaccines, 9(2), 113.
Wilkinson, D., & McBride, A. K. S. (2022). Clinical ethics: consent for vaccination in children. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 107(1), 3-4.