NHS FPX 4000 Assessment 3 Limited Access to Healthcare

Sample Answer for NHS FPX 4000 Assessment 3 Limited Access to Healthcare Included After Question

Write a 4-6 page analysis of a current problem or issue in health care, including a proposed solution and possible ethical implications.


Note: The requirements outlined below correspond to the grading criteria in the scoring guide. At a minimum, be sure to address each point. In addition, you are encouraged to review the performance-level descriptions for each criterion to see how your work will be assessed.

Describe the health care problem or issue you selected for use in Assessment 2 (from the Assessment Topic Areas media piece) and provide details about it.

Explore your chosen topic. For this, you should use the first four steps of the Socratic Problem-Solving Approach to aid your critical thinking.

This approach was introduced in Assessment 2.

Identify possible causes for the problem or issue.

Use scholarly information to describe and explain the health care problem or issue and identify possible causes for it. Identify at least three scholarly or academic peer-reviewed journal articles about the topic.

You may find the How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? library guide helpful in locating appropriate references.

You may use articles you found while working on Assessment 2 or you may search the Capella library for other articles.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NHS FPX 4000 Assessment 3 Limited Access to Healthcare

Title: NHS FPX 4000 Assessment 3 Limited Access to Healthcare 

Healthcare providers work in environments that predispose them to significant ethical dilemmas. Often, they have to adopt ethical decision-making approaches in coming up with sound decisions that promote professionalism and the rights of their clients. Practice issues such as the refusal of parents for their children to be vaccinated increases the need for healthcare providers to make moral and ethical decisions (Leask et al., 2012). Ethical principles that inform the decisions of healthcare providers in such situations include justice, benevolence, non-maleficence, confidentiality, and autonomy among others (Halstead et al., 2020). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore ethical principles that would be applied to address the selected case study involving parents who do not want their children to be vaccinated. The explored areas in the analysis include an overview of the selected case study, ethical issue, ethical decision-making, communication approaches, and the application of ethical principles to resolve the issue.

Overview of Case Study

The selected case for this analysis is incident 10 case study, which involves parents that have refused their child’s vaccination. Jenna and Chris Smith are the parents of a 5-day old baby girl, Ana. The parents have refused vaccination of their child because of the harm that the vaccines might have on Ana. Accordingly, they express that vaccinating their child will predispose her to autism due to the effect of vaccines. Jenna and Chris consider that the best alternative to raising their child will involve exclusively breastfeeding, using organic foods, and not vaccinating her to promote her health and wellbeing. After listening to their concerns, Dr. Angela Kerr, a pediatrician, takes her time to provide the parents scientific information about the safety of vaccines.

She educates them that vaccines have saved lives of millions of children over the past century. Dr. Kerr also educates them about the manner in which the government updates information about vaccine safety through databases that include the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting (VAERS). The database is open to the public for it to be updated on the safety of vaccines. The pediatrician also informs them about the importance of immunization in minimizing the predisposition of the unvaccinated populations to diseases (Ethical Case Study, 2020).  Despite this information on the benefits of vaccination, the Smith’s family does not accept Ana’s vaccination.

Analysis of the Ethical Issues in the Case Study

The ethical dilemma in the case study is refusal of the Smith’s family for their daughter to be vaccinated. Dr. Kerr feels that Ana’s family should be educated about the scientific benefits of vaccination and risks of not having their daughter vaccinated. This is after she finds out about their misinformed perceptions towards vaccines. Dr. Kerr experiences the ethical dilemma of beneficence and autonomy. Autonomy entails respect the decisions that patients make while beneficence entails doing good to others (Gesser-Edelsburg et al., 2018; Healy et al., 2022). Dr. Kerr has the professional and ethical responsibility of ensuring Ana’s safety and health is protected through vaccinations.

She also has the ethical responsibility of respecting the decisions of the patients. As a result, she experiences ethical dilemma on the best decision to adopt. Laws on the individuals that should make decisions on the care to be given to a patient vary across countries. Most countries recognize that parents or guardians have the responsibility of making decisions for children aged below eighteen years (Navin et al., 2020). Dr. Kerr considers the legal requirements of ethical practice, hence, facing dilemma of protecting the child’s health and respecting the autonomy right of the parents.

Using Ethical Decision-Making Model to Analyze the Case Study

The ethical decision-making applicable in analyzing this case study has three components that include moral awareness, moral judgment and ethical behavior. Moral awareness is the situation where one recognizes and acknowledges the presence of an ethical dilemma in an encounter or situation. Individual’s sensitivity to professional and personal values and principles makes one be aware of ethical dilemmas (Zorzato et al., 2022). Dr. Kerr’s moral awareness can be seen from her immediate understanding of the parents’ misinformed perception towards vaccination. Moral judgment refers to a situation where one makes a decision to choose between right and wrong choices or actions. Factors such as organizational culture and cognitive biases influence moral judgment (Adewale et al., 2019; Zorzato et al., 2022). Dr. Kerr’s moral judgment can be seen from her decision to educate the parents about the benefits of vaccination to their daughter. Ethical behavior entails the best decision that one adopts to address an ethical dilemma. Dr. Kerr’s ethical behavior can be seen in her decision to educate the parents about the benefits of vaccination using scientific evidence.

Effectiveness of Communication Approaches in the Case Study

Effective communication is important in addressing ethical dilemmas in practice. Dr. Kerr demonstrated effective communication approaches in helping Ana’s parents understand her views towards vaccination. Accordingly, Dr. Kerr utilized active listening and adopted a non-judgmental approach in communicating with the parents. Dr. Kerr took her time to listen to the reasons the parents had towards decline vaccination of their daughter. Active listening helped her to understand the attitude, beliefs, and knowledge the parents had towards vaccination. Active listening also provided her an effective basis for responding to them (Bester, 2022).

Dr. Kerr also demonstrated open-mindedness by not making conclusions without considering their views. As a result, she was non-judgmental in expressing her views towards vaccination, which made the parents comfortable in the process. Therefore, healthcare providers should demonstrate openness, transparency, and practice effective communication approaches to build trust with their patients. Family or patient-centered education should also be adopted to facilitate informed decision-making. Patient or family-centered education contributes to optimum outcomes such as safety, quality, and efficiency in the treatment process (Adewale et al., 2019).

Resolving the Ethical Dilemma by Applying Ethical Principles

Ethical Principles are guidelines to help healthcare professional to work and decide through difficult situation and to provide them with better direction on their decision. In this case, study, Dr. Kerr must use the ethical principle of beneficence, autonomy and non-maleficence. Autonomy is the ethical principle that recognizes that patients have the right to make independent decisions. The healthcare providers should not attribute the decisions made to actions such as coercion. Healthcare providers can only make decisions for patients if they do not have the capacity to do so (Bester, 2022). Dr. Kerr recognizes the role of parents’ decision on whether their child should be vaccinated or not. Ana is also below 18 years, implying that the decisions of the parents should be respected. Dr. Kerr respects the autonomy of the parents by not imposing on them the decision they need to adopt.

Dr. Kerr also has to consider the ethical principle of non-maleficence. Non-maleficence entails do no harm to the patient. Dr. Kerr advocates Ana’s vaccination since she believes that it will protect her from diseases. However, she has no influence in the decisions made since the parents have the right to decide for their daughter (Bester, 2022). Therefore, it is important that Dr. Kerr requests the parents to provide her the source of their information and educate them about the credible sources of information they should use in the future. Educating parents will enhance their awareness about the health needs of their daughter, hence, the promotion of beneficence principle of doing good to others.


In conclusion, Dr. Kerr should continue to advocate for the patient by educating the parents gradually to an evidence base topic regarding vaccination, rather than opinion base. Healthcare Professionals play crucial roles in maintaining the public trust in vaccination, including addressing the parent’s concern. Dr. Kerr should also consider the parents feelings toward vaccination but must present data and documentation to contradict their beliefs. Through it, Ana’s parents will make informed decisions about the best decision that they should adopt to promote their daughters’ optimum health and wellbeing.


Adewale, O., Cooper, C., Felix, P., Mitchell, A., Savage, J., & Mase, W. (2019). The Ethics of Parental Refusal to Vaccinate: Costs, Community Safety, and Individual Rights. Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association, 7(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.20429/jgpha.2019.070215

Bester, J. C. (2022). Vaccine Ethics: Ethical Considerations in Childhood Vaccination. In N. Nortjé & J. C. Bester (Eds.), Pediatric Ethics: Theory and Practice (pp. 437–451). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86182-7_27

Ethical Case Studies. (2020). Capella.Edu.


Gesser-Edelsburg, A., Diamant, A., Hijazi, R., & Mesch, G. S. (2018). Correcting misinformation by health organizations during measles outbreaks: A controlled experiment. PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0209505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209505

Halstead, S. B., Katzelnick, L. C., Russell, P. K., Markoff, L., Aguiar, M., Dans, L. R., & Dans, A. L. (2020). Ethics of a partially effective dengue vaccine: Lessons from the Philippines. Vaccine, 38(35), 5572–5576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.06.079

Healy, C. M., Savas, L. S., Shegog, R., Lunstroth, R., & Vernon, S. W. (2022). Medical ethics principles underscore advocating for human papillomavirus vaccine. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 0(0), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2021.1989926

Leask, J., Kinnersley, P., Jackson, C., Cheater, F., Bedford, H., & Rowles, G. (2012). Communicating with parents about vaccination: A framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatrics, 12, 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-12-154

Navin, M. C., Kozak, A. T., & Deem, M. J. (2020). Perspectives of public health nurses on the ethics of mandated vaccine education. Nursing Outlook, 68(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.06.014

Zorzato, D., Pook, C. J., & Bekhor, J. (2022). Response to ‘The moral and religious obligation to vaccinate children in Jewish ethics.’ Acta Paediatrica, 111(1), 191–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.16154