Mr. Simpson's Flu Shot Case Study

Introduction

The main aim of writing this paper is to discuss the topic of Mr. Simpsons flu shot in a moral perspective and its implication on him. The case study involves a patient named Mr. Simpson. The patient was advised to take a flu shot in order to avoid getting the flu. In most cases getting the flu would not be a severe issue, but with Mr. Simpson, it is a life-threatening condition as his lungs have reached a point where they cannot handle flu anymore. Contracting flu would cost him his life. This situation was explicitly stated to him by his Doctors, but he opted not to take the flu shot as he thought that it would lead to him contracting flu. It is within the doctors' ethical and moral obligation to practice beneficence and go over Mr. Simpson's decision so as to protect him from the imminent medical hazard.

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

Save 25%

Beneficence is an action that is done by doctors or physicians on behalf of their patient in situations where the patients are unconscious or in a mental state that would not allow them to make informed choices. Beneficence requires that the Doctor's ensure that they do what's best for the patients' health in a situation where the patient might not be able to choose the best cause of action for himself ("Ethical Issues Concerning Vaccination Requirements"). In Mr. Simpson's case, he can speak for himself, and there are no signs that he is mentally unstable meaning that he is perfectly capable of making good decisions based on his health matters. But this does seem to be the case as he completely rejects the treatment that is recommended for him, as he believes that the vaccine might end up making him contract the flu that he is trying to avoid. However, this is not true, and there are no chances that he would catch the flu as a result.

My stand on this case is that the doctors should be allowed to choose to do whatever they see fit in order to save Mr. Simpson's life as they are sure that the shots would not cause any harm to him. Using the beneficence ethical principle, they would be within their right to go against his wishes by giving him the vaccinations ("Ethical Issues Concerning Vaccination Requirements"). This is justified as following his wishes would undoubtedly lead to his death. This move could be made by directly informing him about the decision they have made to administer the vaccine despite his clear statement about how he felt about it. This could be made easier if he was educated on how the vaccine works and more information about how it would be riskier to live without the vaccinations. Thinking process of an individual also affects the consciousness level of a person. For instance, levels of thinking differ for different people. This may be attributed due to exposure and levels of knowledge. Therefore, consciousness as a mental state is affected by external factors. In Simpsons Case, his mental state would have been affected by the little exposure of knowledge.

Beneficence exhorts the doctors to take affirmative action to prevent loss or damage to health and life. The attachment and special connection between a doctor and his patient due to the preexisting doctor-patient relationships demand the practice of obligatory or specific beneficence by such practitioners. Furthermore, although the doctor has no moral duty to protect the life of his or her patient based on general beneficence, he has an ethical commitment to do so. Unlike in nonmaleficence, where the doctors can refrain from acting, beneficence dictates that the doctors have the moral responsibility to ensure that lives of their patients are not lost by doing what they trust is even when it means going against their patients' wishes. If the doctors do not act at all, Mr. Simpson will contract another flu and probably die. Therefore, it is in Mr. Simpson's 0best interest for physicians to ignore his right to autonomy and go ahead and administer the vaccine shot. If the doctors choose to respect Mr. Simpson's decision, it would be the same as intentionally letting a patient die.

The doctors have the right to perform a medical procedure without the patient's consent if such an action has a high probability of preventing damage to life or health. According to the case study, the vaccine shot will protect Mr. Simpsons against any other flu attack. Since a flu attack will be detrimental to the patient's health, the doctors are justified to lie for the greater good of his health. Additionally, there are no significant risks, plus the benefits outweigh any 'harm.' The vaccine shot does not have any known side effects that will worsen Mr. Simpson's condition. The speculation by the subject that the vaccine will leave him vulnerable to a flu attack is uninformed. Thus, it would not be right for the medical team to ignore such a dangerous and life-threatening medical condition just because of an ignorant assumption.

Medical paternalism is embedded in the judgment that the principle of beneficence is superior to the principle of autonomy. From paternalism point of view, a doctor can override the patient's choices and justify the decision with the goal of benefiting or preventing harm to the patient. To be specific, strong paternalism allows physicians to intervene to benefit a patient, in spite of his or her risky preferences which are informed, voluntary and autonomous. In this case study, the consequence of failing to take the vaccine shot has been explained to Mr. Simpson. Nonetheless, the patient refuses to be vaccinated. Strong paternalism is appropriate in Mr. Simpson's case because he faces a risk of severe yet preventable harm. If the preventive medicine is administered, the medical risk of the flu which may include death can be avoided. Therefore, the paternalistic action is justified. Moreover, the least autonomy-restrictive alternative, which is lying to the patient, will secure the benefits and reduce the risks. Presenting the vaccine shot to Mr. Simpson in the form of medicine to boost his immune system will ensure that he has successfully been vaccinated and, as a result, becoming safe against the dangers of the flu. Thus, although some might argue that lying to patients is not ethical, it is justified in this case. The benefit of lying outweighs the risks to the patient.

Considering that the Doctors had already told Mr. Simpsons on the risk he would face by rejecting the shots, and chances are he would still reject the shot even after he was given a brief education on his condition and how a vaccine could help him. In such a case it would be best to take his family's advice. His family had advised the doctor to secretly administer the vaccine to him by lying to him that it's another type of drug, for instance, a vitamin C injection to boost his immune system ("Understanding Healthcare Decisions at the End of Life"). This would also be acceptable given that in cases where a patient is unable to talk or communicate, the next of kin have a right to decide on important decisions such as operations and usage of life support machines. This would apply in Mr. Simpson's case as his actions and decisions do not seem to be from a man who is of sound mind.

In defense of Mr. Simpson's choice, there might be arguments which state that his decision should be final as he has a right to choose the medication he wants as it's his body and he would be the one paying for the medical services. This is true, but such recommendations should be made in situations where the case in question is not a matter of life and death. His knowledge about what's best for him is limited as he is not an expert in medicine. Therefore, the best bet on how to save his life would be listening to the doctor's advice. On another hand, there might also be objections on the doctor's decisions based on the theory that he might die because of flu caused by the vaccine if he takes it hence if it would have been the doctor's misjudgment that would have caused his death. This, however, is impossible, as stated in the case study there is no chance that he would end up catching the flu virus because of vaccination, this is contrary to the results of him not taking any vaccine. Looking at his previous history Mr. Simpson has had flu so many times, and this has happened so much that his longs have cannot handle any other cold. So, it would be better for Mr. Simpson to risk his life with the vaccine used to prevent the unwanted cold other than sit and hope not cold which sounds impossible as his lungs have grown weak because of too many colds.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr. Simpson's case holds great risks that jeopardize the continuation of life. And, in most cases where a medical issue can lead to death, the expert's opinion takes precedence over the patient's viewpoint. Examples of such instances include situations where a patient has been involved in an accident, where the doctor's opinion takes precedence over all others. The doctor will make sure to do anything possible to save the victims life. Another perfect example includes someone who is trying to commit suicide, such a person might be sober and intelligent, but the fact that his decision may in one way or another lead to death means that his opinion would not matter despite the facts that it's his life that would be at risk. Similarly, Mr. Simpson places his life at risk by making decisions that would most probably cost him his life. As a doctor, I would choose the option to deceive the patient that he/she is getting a vitamin shot so that they can relax. Such a decision would be best as the family would have agreed and the patient would have gained more confidence about his health. Furthermore, ethical practices of beneficence and medical paternalism advocates form such an action.

Works Cited

"Alzheimer Europe - Ethics - Definitions And Approaches - The Four Common Bioethical Principles - Beneficence And Non-Maleficence". Alzheimer-Europe.Org, 2018, http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Ethics/Definitions-and-approaches/The-four-common-bioethical-principles/Beneficence-and-non-maleficence. Accessed 14 Apr 2018.

"Understanding Healthcare Decisions At The End Of Life". National Institute On Aging, 2018, https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/understanding-healthcare-decisions-end-life. Accessed 14 Apr 2018.

"Ethical Issues Concerning Vaccination Requirements". Vol 34, no. 1, 2012. Springer Nature, doi:10.1007/bf03391666.