Assessment brief

 Please read the assessment task below and upload your response to Canvas by the specified deadline.

 Ethics within the Health Care Arena

Learning Outcomes

LO1:  Demonstrate an understanding of a range of philosophical perspectives related to health and how this impacts on a variety of health care arenas
LO2:  Articulate a reasoned solution to an ethical dilemma in health, with reference to appropriate sources of information.
LO3:  Critically apply contemporary ethics issues to the given scenario.

Assessment task

Critically analyse the ethical issues within the scenario below in an essay that covers the following:

• Write an introduction to your essay (5 marks)
• Examine two approaches to ethics and how these would apply to the scenario. (20 marks)
• Apply the four ethical principles. (20 marks)
• Incorporate any legal or other ethical issues. (20 marks)
• Apply David Seedhouse’s ethical grid in an attempt to reach a reasoned argument, to the scenario. (25 marks)
• Provide a reasoned, coherent argument to address the above with a final conclusion. (10 marks)

Notes:

• In-text references are required.
• Please respond to the task in 2500 words essay (+/- 10%)
• Use the cover sheet (front page) provided.

Case scenario

Introduction

Measles, mumps, and rubella are serious viral communicable diseases. Vaccination is an evidence-based successful approach to minimise threats from diseases known for causing morbidity and mortality. The MMR vaccine contains weakened versions of live measles, mumps and rubella viruses. The MMR vaccine is one of the routine vaccinations in the UK, administered usually at the age of 12-13 months. There is no evidence of link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Vaccine hesitancy is a major global health challenge, it means a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines, which could be due to a range of reasons. Vaccine hesitancy contributes to outbreaks and the spread of diseases, for example, measles in the UK.

 

Scenario

You are a healthcare professional working in a primary care clinic. You meet Ms. Rawan, a 30-year-old lady from an ethnic minority, who came to the clinic with her 15 months son. Ms. Rawan came for her child’s vaccination, you noticed that she was hesitant when entered the room. You noticed from the records that Ms. Rawan re-scheduled this appointment twice. You welcomed her, explained the procedure to Ms. Rawan and gave her the leaflets of the vaccines to read. While you were preparing the injections, Ms. Rawan had a quick look at the leaflets and said she accepts 3 of the vaccines but refuses to give her child the MMR vaccine. When you asked her about the reason for refusing the vaccine, she seemed anxious and said giving a ‘live version’ of the virus to her child scares her, and the written side effects seemed harmful. She further explained that she saw on Facebook an advert saying the MMR vaccine is linked to autism. You explained briefly that she should remember that the side effects are milder compared to the potential complications of having these diseases. However, she said she does not want to be judged and that, it is nothing personal with you, but she does not trust the system due to previous experiences.

You had many other patients waiting outside, and you were not sure whether to take Ms. Rawan response as an informed decision to refuse the vaccination, or this needed further action from you. You asked her to wait for two minutes, and consulted two colleagues for second opinion. One of your colleagues suggested that if you think the vaccine is important for the child and the public then you could simply give the injection without telling the mother, he implied that he did this before. Your other colleague suggested that you go back and make sure you take more time for proper informed consent.