Anti-Vaxers and Ethical Dilemma Essay Example

An ethical dilemma is a common situation in health care delivery especially when the health care providers consider the issue of beneficence versus autonomy. An ethical dilemma is termed as a situation whereby the choice has to be made between two alternatives that in most cases entails moral principle transgression. The ethical dilemma aspects are encountered by health care professionals especially when they meet anti-Vaxers who are mainly the parents of the child that needs to be vaccinated. Anti-Vaxers pose a challenge for health care professionals in choosing between the best interventions that take care of their patients (beneficence) and respecting their patients' preferences (autonomy) to refuse.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Arguably, there is a conflict that exists between beneficence and autonomy that bring challenges among medical professionals. The health professional can offer the best services and care to their patients. However, the patient/guardian has the right to refuse, potentially causing harm to their children and others (Butts & Rich, 2019). Such a case was well presented in the headlines today with the measles outbreak in Washington State that's being blamed on anti-Vaxers.

In the provision of health care, the moral principle of beneficence refers to the act of doing what is good for the concerned patient. On the other hand, the ethical principle of autonomy applies to the law of respecting decisions which are made by other individuals about their own lives (Butts & Rich, 2019). Therefore, when vaccines have to be administered the health care provider has to consider the act of doing well by giving the patient what they see as best for them. But they also have to put into consideration the desires of the patients concerning vaccines administration. As presented, both factors are essential, and that is why the health care providers involved in such situations usually find themselves in a dilemma as they try to pick the most appropriate decision.

Vaccination is a tremendous medical achievement which has taken many years to attain. Through utilisation of vaccines, many infectious diseases completely lowered and others have been eradicated although they once made millions of lives. Vaccines play a significant role in protecting adults and children against dangerous and infectious diseases. When vaccines are utilised, they not only protect the immunised individual but also protects the entire community (Rubin, 2014). Thus, it is essential for society members to be vaccinated so that they could be protected from infectious diseases.

However, even though vaccines are very beneficial, it is not everybody who acknowledges the use of vaccines. Some peoples belong to religious groups which restricts them from allowing administration of vaccines. Thus, although vaccines are helpful individuals from those groups do not use them at all. When such individuals go to seek for medical attention, doctors find themselves in hard situations of deciding whether to go against the consent of that patient by administering vaccines at whatever cost versus choosing to respect the autonomy of those patients (Horne et al., 2014). At such point, the providers of health care advocates for laws which would penalise those clients who are not willing to take vaccines regardless of their religious beliefs. But this further triggers the ethical dilemma of whether the government should permit the administration of vaccines when the individual or parents refuse to take medications.

Notably, anti-Vaxers pose a challenge in attaining Herd immunity. In this case, all the community members require to be vaccinated so that the infectious disease can be combated. However, when a large number of people decline to be treated, then it becomes impossible to attain herd immunity. Hence, the infectious disease becomes a threat to those who refuse to be protected as well as those who have been treated (Rubin, 2014). At such instances, the health care providers and the government find themselves in an ethical dilemma of choosing between beneficence and autonomy. Hence, they have to decide to override the independence and liberty of those individuals as they seek to save the community by improving their health conditions.

In the same manner, some parents refuse their children to be vaccinated due to their own philosophical or religious beliefs. The parents have the right to make decisions concerning the wellbeing of their children and thus what they decide is what require to be done. But the choice of parents to refuse vaccination of their children tend to affect other children who receive treatments as well as their children (Horne et al., 2014). In this case, it becomes difficult to fight the viruses which cause infectious diseases. Therefore, immunocompromised children grow susceptible to contagious disease, and this could result in death. Due to such cases, it becomes an ethical dilemma for the providers of health care to watch the children die due to the respect of their autonomy or whether to forceful administer vaccines in an attempt to benefit the children by saving their lives (Horne et al., 2014).

Conclusion

In conclusion, anti-Vaxers pose an ethical dilemma to health care providers in terms of beneficence and autonomy principles. It becomes a challenge for a decision to be made on whether to do what is right and benefit the patient or whether to respect the patient autonomy and watch them suffer due to their own decisions.

References

Butts, J. B., & Rich, K. L. (2019). Nursing Ethics (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Horne, Z., Powell, D., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10321-10324.

Rubin, M. A. (2014). The Collaborative Autonomy Model of Medical Decision-Making. Neurocritical Care, 20(2), 311-318.