Tonya’s Case: Ethics and Professional Codes
Tonya’s Case: Ethics and Professional Codes
In health practice, health care providers do everything possible within their means to enhance patient recovery. Guided by ethical principles, professional codes of conduct and personal willingness to restore health and wellness, health care providers ensure that the patient is not at any health risk at any time. However, some situations force health care providers to act contrary to what is generally expected of them. A suitable example is when they encourage a patient’s death if there are no chances of recovery. Like in Tonya Archer’s case, such situations spark controversies, particularly when patients and families fail to consent. This paper explores Tonya Archer’s case study with much attention on the principles of health care ethics related to the case, professional code of ethics, and the views of accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission.
Principles of Health Care Ethics and Moral Theory
End-of-life issues are controversial, and there is no standard way of approaching such situations. After Tonya’s permanent brain damage and considering that life support can only prolong death instead of helping the recovery, a convincing decision to Tonya’s family is essential. A glance at this case reveals that the most relevant end-of-life issue related to the case is the parents right to make end-of-life decisions for the child. According to Karnik and Kanekar (2016), families act as proxies when the patient is in a condition where making an individual decision is impossible. It is also important to be guided by the principle of futile care. Here, the implication is that although it is crucial to support life as much as possible, it is irrational to continue using family finances and hospital resources for procedures that will not lead to any positive outcomes and outcomes can be determined.
When making the final decision, the question that needs to be answered is whether the hospital should keep Tonya on life support since it is the parents’ desire, or life support should be removed considering that all medical evidence indicates whole brain death. From a medical perspective, health care providers can make decisions backed up by medical evidence and legal support. Most bioethicists feel that brain death’s designation is adequate to justify withdrawing life support (Muramoto, 2016). In the same case, the law generally supports a hospital decision to discontinue life support. If the case leads to legal issues, the courts are likely to call for limited reasonable accommodations to allow for a second opinion of the diagnosis or when religious objections have been made. Since it has not reached that extent, the best approach is to show the parents the implications of their decision and why the hospital’s decision is the best for the child, family, and the hospital.
Moral theories also serve as the philosophical foundations for making ethical judgments. The most suitable in this case is the
deontological theory. The basic premise of deontological ethics is that an action’s morality should be based on whether the action is right or wrong. The consideration should be rules instead of an action’s consequences (Mandal et al., 2016). Since rules [medical and legal] support ending life support if the patient condition is irreversible, the best decision is to end life support. The moral obligation under the deontology theory comes from a set of rules that may conflict with personal desires, such as the case of Tonya’s parents.
Professional Code of Ethics
Like other employees, health care providers should provide services and make decisions consistent with the professional code of ethics. The decision made is consistent with the professional code of working competently within our education and expertise scope. Indeed, this is the most important code to consider since it would lead to no ethical and legal issues afterwards. The other code is treating patients and their families with empathy and respect while honoring their autonomy and privacy. It is also crucial to provide consultative expertise. Since the contentious issue is autonomy, it is crucial to make Tonya’s parents understand the issue in-depth and be guided from a medical perspective and avoid being controlled by emotions or love for the child, which can be misleading.
Hospital Mission and Values
Health care organizations provide health care services as they follow general practice guidelines. Moreover, they are guided by independent visions, missions, and values. The hospital selected in the independent research looks forward to delivering care that satisfies all patients’ and families’ needs. Its vision is to be a leading health care provider in the state while adhering to excellence, quality, and safety needs. The leading values include honesty, competence, and holism. Reflecting on Tonya’s case shows that the decision to end life support is consistent with the hospital’s mission, vision, and values. Although the parents are somewhat reluctant, ending life support is based on excellence and honesty and promotes patient safety.
Support from Accredited Bodies
Different accredited bodies serve different roles in health regulation and monitoring quality standards. The Joint Commission would support ending life support. It recommends using medication safely and identifying patient safety risks. Overall, the state-of-the-art standards focus on patient safety and quality of care (The Joint Commission, 2021). Since safety and quality standards have been met and can be defended from medical and legal perspectives, the Joint Commission would support the decision.
In conclusion, Tonya’s case study shows the controversies surrounding the use of life support procedures. Patients and families’ autonomy should be respected while considering whether a procedure would be futile and misuse health care resources. As health care providers act according to what professional code of ethics obliges them, it is crucial to consider making satisfactory and medically and ethically valid decisions. Always, the final decision should prioritize patient’s health, safety, and wellness as much as possible.
References
Karnik, S., & Kanekar, A. (2016). Ethical issues surrounding end-of-life care: a narrative review. In Healthcare (Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 24). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. doi:10.3390/healthcare4020024
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical parasitology, 6(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5070.175024
Muramoto, O. (2016). Informed consent for the diagnosis of brain death: a conceptual argument. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 11(1), 1-15. https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13010-016-0042-4
The Joint Commission. (2021). Facts about the Joint Commission. https://www.jointcommission.org/about-us/facts-about-the-joint-commission/