Overview of the case study
Dr. Angela Kerr is a pediatrician who works in a community whose primary concern is patient care and health quality. She has a new role in manning Ana’s health, a 5-day-old baby born of Jenna and Chris Smith. The parents are believers of research and studied information which they high rely on in decision making. They are college-educated and understand the value of data in enhancing their lifestyle. The data from the internet and mom blogs discredit the use of vaccination on children citing that it causes more problems than cure. It is contrary to health care practices and recommendations for vaccination. In this case, Dr. Angela is responsible for advising the parents concerning the reason for vaccination and why it is compulsory in the health care system.
After listening to their side of the argument, Dr. Angela Kerr informs the parents about the importance of vaccination. She chronologically explains how it is effective in protecting children’s lives worldwide. Further, Dr. Kerr explains why everyone must undergo vaccination to avoid bringing infections to other community members. Also, she clarifies that individuals who experience a severe impact due to lack of immunization against the causative (Edwards and Hackell, 2016). Additionally, Dr. Kerr explains that the federal government continually updates and provides reliable information regarding vaccines’ safety. Their effectiveness is tested regularly and approved by the center for disease control and prevention.
Nevertheless, the parents maintain their stand that Ana should not undergo the vaccination process. Instead, they will use natural methods they learned from the internet to prevent their child from contradicting infectious diseases. The decision is contrary to the ethical guidelines in health care since the rules state that every child must undergo the vaccination process (Dube, Vivion, and MacDonald, 2015). Despite the moral awareness of the implications, the parents fail to make a moral judgment in-line with healthcare (Flanagan-Klygis, Sharp and Frader, 2005). After confirmation that they understand the repercussions of their decisions, the parents remain unchanged. In this case, Dr. Kerr has a dilemma on the next cause of action since he must obey the parent’s findings and the healthcare system requirements.
Literature review
Pediatrics have a significant challenge in responding to parents who refuse their children to undergo the immunization process. The study by Alexander, Lacy, Myers, and Lantos (2016) evaluates pediatrics and the relevance of policies concerning taking care of unvaccinated children. The researchers use various case studies and analyze the responses from the pediatrics on the same. Therefore, the course is relevant to provide information on the pediatrician’s approach to the ethical dilemma. The system is credible since the authors are acknowledged researchers and health care experts. The article is published in the official journal of the American Academy of pediatrics website, which is a reliable source.
Child vaccination is essential for the general health and future protection of a person. The study by Bianco, Mascaro, Zucco, and Pavia (2018) investigate the attitudes on child vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. The course focuses on parents as the target population for the research since they decide on child vaccination. The analysis findings are vital to informing us of the possible solutions for solving ethical dilemmas on immunization. The study is credible since it is peer-reviewed and published on the science-direct website.
Communication approaches and their effectiveness
Communication skills are imperative to the health care providers to ensure that they understand and relate with the patient effectively. It is akin to a health care worker to listen attentively to the client and ensure they know all the details. Dr. Angela Kerr listens attentively to capture and understand the parent’s argument for hesitancy to vaccination. By careful listening, the pediatrician was able to identify the vital information that was missing from their ideas. More so, she shows compassionate concern for the child’s health through active listening.
The pediatrician elaborates on the steps for vaccination and reasons for immunization chronologically and straightforwardly. The simplicity of language and articulation enhance the effective delivery of the message to the listeners. In this case, the parents received the letter from Dr. Kerr without biases and misinterpretations. Furthermore, the statement covers all the matters of concern that the parents had regarding vaccination safety. The response is direct to rejecting the interjectory claims the parents had concerning vaccination.
The parents fail to abide by the new information and remain firm on their decision to avoid vaccination. It implies that there was a lack of an influential factor in the message communicated by Dr. Kerr. For instance, the parents want to ensure that vaccination does not result in complications such as seizures in the children. Dr. Kerr’s arguments tend to revolve around defending the health care providers’ facts, hence losing the parents’ trust. The communication approach is inappropriate since it masters pre-conditions rather than on pediatrician experience (Navin, 2017). In this case, there is a disconnection in the trust and relationship between the parents and Dr. Kerr.
Professional’s approach to the situation
Dr. Kerr responds to the information by offering a counter argument and advice regarding the importance of vaccination. First, the pediatrician does not directly implement the parents’ suggestions but diligently questions their due diligence. Through active listening, Dr. Kerr understands that the parents have less information concerning the value of vaccination. In this case, the best cause of action was to provide advice and education on immunization’s importance. Further, she provides data for the success of the vaccination process worldwide and the degree of failed practices.
Dr. Kerr educates the parents on the importance of preventing the spread of infections to others in the community. Further, she explains that the market’s uncertainty comprises exposure to illness that a vaccine can control the intensity of the diseases. The professional explains why the articles from bloggers identify children who suffer from diseases after vaccination. The professional explanation from Dr. Kerr explains the situation and why it occurs in underage children. In this case, the approach is valuable and useful to create adequate awareness to the parents.
Dr. Kerr explains that the child can face significant health problems when the vaccination is neglected. He elaborates on the experience she has with children who fail to undertake the vaccination. The approach is rather diverse and does not significant on Dr. Kerr’s ideologies. It focuses on the entire array of information in health care. The professional advice on the ethical cause of action to take is acceptable in the health care system. More so, she reflects on the government information regarding vaccination, which is relevant to the parents and informs them.
Application of ethical principles
Patients in the health care setting have the right to making decisions for themselves under the principle of autonomy. In this case, the health care provider should hold respect for the client’s requests and decisions. However, in the ethical dilemma, the medical provider is under protection by the principle of beneficence. They must prove that the care, such as vaccination, is in the patient’s best interest.
As per the case, study the child is a minor whose future health is in jeopardy when they do not receive the vaccination. It works under the principle of justice, whereby the child receives a physician’s care and vaccination. It is the fairest process since it is a tested approach that benefits millions of children worldwide. The parents’ approach to using organic methods can cause serious repercussions when it fails or lacks the right ingredients. More so, when the child interacts with other people, they are likely to get incurable illnesses.
Ethical conduct enhances impartiality and objectivity when dealing with clients in the health care setting. Through open and honest communication, Dr. Kerr builds a good relationship with the clients. In this case, the ethical principle makes the pediatrician more effective and competent in delivering care. However, there is a disconnection in the acceptance of differences in the information. The health care professional should ensure that communication fosters a neutral understanding and a solution. In this case, the pediatrician must employ ethical standards and provide good collaboration with the clients and other professionals.
Conclusion
Decision planning in the health care setting should involve the implementation of ethical principles to enhance effective care. Dr. Angela Kerr must make a critical decision between accepting the parent’s proposal to refuse vaccination or abide by the health care protocols. The decision should enforce ethical principles which are imperative in the delivery of quality care. Hence, the solution, in this case, involves following the ethical principles of autonomy, which respects the client’s decision.