Health Care for American Journal of Bioethics- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theHealth Care for American Journal of Bioethics. Answer: The Case study is about Amos, a student who is residing outside the school compound. Some of his classmates live in the school while others stay in residence near the learning Institution. A nearby hospital alerts the school, where Amos is a student, about Cholera outbreak. The health facility urges all students to visit the hospital for checkup and treatment for infected students. Majority of the students had Cholera, Amos included. The hospital management realized that the number of students infected was high and they required treatment immediately. Facilities at the hospital are not enough to medically attend to all patients. The doctors decide to attend to students who live within the school compound; thus disadvantaging the day scholars such as Amos. Amos argued that, besides residing outside the school compound, he was one of the school students and should have received medical attention. However, his pleading fell on deaf ears; he was forced to return home. By the time, he went back; he was in the worst Health condition. Amos eventually succumbed to Cholera. Ethical Issues in the Case Study First, Amos was one of the students in the school and should have received medical attention like other students. Therefore, the doctors disrespected Amos thoughts and decision violating his Autonomy. Secondly, Amos is a student just like others. He requires equal treatment; the doctors should not deny him. Thus, the doctors are wrong as they mistreat Amos. The treatment of Amos goes against the ethical principles of Justice. Thirdly, failure of the doctors to treat Amos because he is a day scholar does not do well to him as he later dies of Cholera. The misconduct by Doctors goes against the principles of beneficence. Non-maleficence requires that the doctor's actions do not cause pain to the patient; however, the clinicians failure to treat Amos lead to his death. The Government of Australia is also on the list of those on the blame list concerning the situation of Amos. The national executive is unjust as it fails to allocate enough resources to cater for the health needs of all citizens. Human Dignity Human Dignity recognizes that individuals have a unique value that resides within them. Thus, everybody, including health practitioners should respect the personality of one another (Matiti, 2015). The dignity of a person is God-given; appreciating the fact that God created humans in his image and likeness (Cherangi, 2014). Every individual, regardless of gender, race, age, and worthy deserve respectful treatment from everyone (Matiti, 2015). Amos resides outside the school compound as compared to other classmates who live within the school premises. The fact that he differs with classmates regarding the area of residence should not allow the nurses at the health facility to deny him treatment. After all, he remains to be a human being just like other classmates; hence, deserves respect and equal treatment. Human Rights The World Health Organization (W.H.O) outlays the rights that every country, Australia included, should accord to its citizens. The organization recognizes health as a fundamental human right (Faden, 2014). Any state should ensure that citizens access cheap and acceptable health care. Furthermore, patients should access health services in good time (Faden, 2014). Australian government fails to meet all requirements of the clause; since Amos receives medical attention too late as he dies. According to W.H.O, the national executive of any nation should allocate enough resources; ensuring that all citizens receive proper medical care (Khademi, 2017). Australian administration denies Amos, the right to healthcare; since the resources at the facility are meager. The limited resources compel the nurses to attend only to students residing within the school compound. The third provision states that: individuals who are less privileged should get priority when it comes to treatment (Khademi, 2017). Amos and other day scholars are not at the same level with other boarding students. Hence, should get the priority. Contrary to the clause, boarders receive the first attention as day scholars get no attention; leading to the death of Amos. In the fourth provision to all nations, the constitution of W.H.O alludes to human dignity (Faden, 2014). The clause states that everyone should enjoy the rights to better healthcare regardless of social status or race. Amos deserves an equal opportunity to treatment; regardless of his area of residence. Rights to Healthcare affect all members of a nation; thus, all stakeholders should support the legislature in ensuring that every citizen accesses affordable medical attention (Khademi, 2017). Australian Code of Ethics There are many Ethical Codes that the nurses ignored in Amos' case. The first code requires Nurses to prioritize the provision of exemplary care for every Australian citizen (Atkins, De Lacey, Britton, Ripperger, 2017). The nurse and the doctor at the facility close to Amos school violate the first code. Amos is an Australian citizen and deserves the best care from any hospital in the country. The second code state that nurses should be respectful and kind both to themselves and to their patients (Atkins et al., 2017). By not attending to Amos, they disrespect Amos. The third code states that Australian nurses should respect the rich diversity of the Australian population (Atkins et al., 2017). Therefore, the fact that Amos stays outside the school should not prevent him from accessing healthcare. The fourth code states that nurses should prioritize the provision of first-class care to all citizens (Atkins et al., 2017). Amos fails to access proper attention from the health facility. The fifth code requires nurses to make informed decisions concerning treatment. The art of failing to treat Amos is a poor decision. The eighth code of ethics needs nurses to promote an economically viable, socially binding and ecological friendly care for patients (Atkins et al., 2017). Amos fails to access the five codes discussed above. Australian Nursing Professional Code of Conduct The Nursing board in Australia has devised codes that every nurse and other health practitioners should observe when administering treatment. The first Code explains that the nurses should create a mostly safe environment and be competent in discharging their duties (Kangasniemi, Pakkanen, Korhonen, 2015). The Nurses' failure to attend to Amos showed their incompetency and disregard to the first code of Conduct. The second Code states that nurses should offer treatment concerning acceptable professional standards (Kangasniemi et al., 2015). Failure to treat any Australian patient is unacceptable in any health facility. The third code indicates that nurses should observe relevant laws when discharging their duties (Kangasniemi et al., 2015). The inability to treat Amos is unlawful and goes against the code. The fourth code insinuates that nurses should respect the cultural diversity of the Australian citizens (Kangasniemi et al., 2015). Additionally, ethical and any other type of disparity should not bar an individual from accessing healthcare. Moreover, a person's dignity, beliefs, and values should assume center stage when nurses are administering treatment (Kangasniemi et al., 2015). The nurse at the hospital disrespects the diversity of students when they fail to attend to Amos medically. The ninth code of nursing professionalism requires nurses to gain the nation's confidence and trust by providing unrivaled care for patients (Kangasniemi et al., 2015). Amos loses faith and trust in the Australian health system when he misses essential medical care. Ethical Principles Nonmaleficence The principle of nonmaleficence indicates that any medical attention towards the patient should not harm that patient (Chua, 2015). The physicians at the health facility that is near the school where Amos was studying, blatantly refuse to treat him. The clinicians go against the principle of nonmaleficence as their refusal to address Amos leads to his death. Justice The principle of Justice indicates that all citizens regardless of their status in the society should enjoy the medical services that the government provides (Dal-Re, 2014). The department of health in various countries should equitably distribute health facilities (Dal-Re, 2014). Amos is a citizen just like the student residing in school; hence should receive treatment. Autonomy Physicians should allow the patients to air their views on treatment procedures freely. Furthermore, the clinicians should respect the opinions of the patients (Holmes, 2016). In Case Study one, the Nurse and Doctor on duty allow Amos to present his say. Amos claims that he is a student of the same school like the others receiving treatment; therefore, should also get medical attention (Gilbert, 2015). However, the doctors disrespect the views of Amos as they refuse to treat him. Beneficence Any medical attention should benefit the patient. Clinicians should shy away from harming patients during treatment (Beauchamp, 2016). In the first place, Amos does not get medical attention from the specialists. The failure of the clinicians to attend to him leads to his death. Recommendations The governments in all nations worldwide, especially in developing countries should learn from Australia and equip health facilities with enough resources to cater for all patients. Secondly, health practitioners should respect the dignity of patients. Thirdly, the various national executives should draft laws to protect patients from physician mistreatment. Fourthly, the clinicians should obey a nations professional code of conduct when attending to patients. Furthermore, the Australian government should introduce policies that ensure that healthcare is affordable to all. Finally, health practitioners should observe ethical principles of Autonomy, Beneficence, Justice, and nonmaleficence. References Atkins, K., De Lacey, S., Britton, B., Ripperger, R. (2017). Ethics and law for Australian nurses. Cambridge University Press. Beauchamp, T. L. (2016). Principlism in Bioethics. In Bioethical Decision Making and Argumentation (pp. 1-16). Springer, Cham. Chimonas, S., DeVito, N. J., Rothman, D. J. (2017). Bringing transparency to medicine: Exploring physicians' views and experiences of the Sunshine Act. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(6), 4-18. Chua, S. J., Pitts, M. (2015). The Ethics of Prescription of Placebos to Patients with Major Depressive Disorder. Chinese medical journal, 128(11), 1555. Dal-R, R., Katsanis, N., Katsanis, S., Parker, L. S., Ayuso, C. (2014). Managing incidental genomic findings in clinical trials: fulfillment of the principle of justice. PLoS medicine, 11(1), e1001584. Cheraghi, M. A., Manookian, A., Nasrabadi, A. N. (2014). Human dignity in religion-embedded cross-cultural nursing. Nursing Ethics, 21(8), 916-928. Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., Kass, N. E. (2014). Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med, 370(8), 766-768. Gilbert, F. (2015). A threat to autonomy? The intrusion of predictive brain implants. AJOB Neuroscience, 6(4), 4-11. Holmes, D. (2016). Critical interventions in the ethics of healthcare: Challenging the principle of autonomy in bioethics. Routledge. Kangasniemi, M., Pakkanen, P., Korhonen, A. (2015). Professional ethics in nursing: an integrative review. Journal of advanced nursing, 71(8), 1744-1757. Khademi, M., Mohammadi, E., Vanaki, Z. (2017). On the violation of hospitalized patients rights: A qualitative study. Nursing ethics, 0969733017709334. Matiti, M. R. (2015). Learning to promote patient dignity: An inter-professional approach. Nurse education in practice, 15(2), 108-110.