NR 439 Discussion Ethical and Legal Issues

The article I chose is “The importance of adhering to high standards of research ethics”. There are a few reasons that are necessary to adhere to high standards of ethics, but one important reason is to keep patients safe and protect their rights.

This can be done by following the guidelines of the Commission on Ethics in Science, 2012, according to Stefaniak & Mazurkiewicz(2017), which can be beneficial to researchers by preventing misconduct, falsification, and plagiarism. ” Doing the right thing from the beginning of a study is the best way to avoid legal and ethical accusations” according to Houser (p.68, 2018). The high standard of care starts when the researcher develops a design for the research. The researcher has to adhere to the laws related to research when designing the research and during the research.

Dangers of conflict of interest can cause bias to be introduced to the research. Dangers of conflict of interest would be getting financial benefit from the research or trying to achieve the best result in the shortest time possible, according to Stefaniak & Mazurkiewicz(2017). Abiding by the law and ethical standards can prevent a researcher from being in a conflict of interest situation with the research.

An example of bias in a research is nurse researcher should not do a research with a group that includes a subject that is under the primary nursing care of the nurse researcher. This can cause bias to be maximized, which can occur in the design of the research or during a research.

Houser, J. (2015). Nursing research: Reading, using and creating evidence (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett

Stefaniak, M., & Mazurkiewicz, B. (2017). The importance of adhering to high standards of research ethics. British Journal of Nursing, 26(1), 62. Retrieve the article: http://proxy.chamberlain.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=120706824&site=eds-live&scope=siteLinks to an external site.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS NR 439 Discussion Ethical and Legal Issues:

to which can be beneficial to researchers by preventing misconduct, falsification, and plagiarism ” Doing the right thing from the beginning of a study is the best way to avoid legal and ethical accusations” according to Houser (p.68, 2018). The high standard of care starts when the researcher develops a design for the research. The researcher has to adhere to the laws related to research when designing the research and during the research.

The dangers of conflict of interest would be bias introduced to the research. Others would be getting financial benefit from the research or acceleration the time of the research to achieve the best result, according to Stefaniak & Mazurkiewicz(2017). Abiding by the law and ethical standards can prevent a researcher from being in a conflict of interest situation with the research. Example, nurse researcher should not do a research with a randomized group that includes a subject that is under the primary nursing care of the nurse researcher. This can cause bias to be maximized, which can occur in the design or during the reasearch.

Houser, J. (2015). Nursing research: Reading, using and creating evidence (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett

I read the second article: Feeney, S., & Freeman, N. K. (2016). Ethical issues: Responsibilities and dilemmas. YC: Young Children, 71(1), 86.

Questions for the second article:

Discuss the difference between ethical responsibility and ethical dilemma:

Ethics is the study of right and wrong. It teaches what one might do when faced with issues where values, rights, personal beliefs, or societal norms may be in conflict (Houser, 2015).The first thing we need to do is determine whether it is an ethical issue when faced with a challenging situation, especially in the workplace. The first question we must ask ourselves if the situation concerns right and wrong, rights and responsibilities, human welfare, or individuals best interest. If the answer to each of these question is “no”, then the situation is not an ethical issue, but if any of the questions is yes, then the situation becomes an ethical issue. (Feeney, S., & Freeman, N. K. (2016).

Ethical responsibilities are mandates that are clearly spelled out in the NAEYC code of ethical conduct. It describes what one must do and must not do. It is similar to legal responsibilities in that they require or forbid a particular action.

According to (Houser, 2015), anytime someone determines that a situation involves ethics and does not think it is a responsibility, it is likely to be a dilemma. A dilemma is a situation for which there are two possible resolutions, each of which can be justified in moral terms. In a dilemma, a person is obligated to choose between two actions. Ethical dilemma s are sometimes known as situations that involve two rights.

Share an experience of ethical dilemma or moral distress in nursing today:

I work in a nursing home, and often times I see families making decisions for their own interest instead of the best interest of the patient. I had a patient with End Liver disease. The advance directives stated Full Code. We organized a care plan meeting because the patient’s prognosis was very poor. The interdisciplinary team together with the Physician suggested to the family to change the code status because the patient was in and out of the hospital. The hospital had recommended hospice, but the family was adamant. The family wanted tube feeding to be inserted so their mother can be fed via tube despite the fact that the physicians have clearly stated the patient will not benefit from any artificial nutrition. In this situation, the family members were making the decisions not in the best interest of their mother but for fear of losing her. The family thought, they could prolong her life instead of thinking of the quality of her life at that particular time. The issue of respecting the patient’s advance directives during end of life is always an ethical dilemma that nurses are confronted with, as families always try to go against the wishes of their loved ones by trying to change the advance directives.

References

Feeney, S., & Freeman, N. K. (2016). Ethical issues: Responsibilities and dilemmas. YC: Young Children, 71(1), 86. Retrieve the article: http://proxy.chamberlain.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=114680496&site=eds-live (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Houser, J. (2018). Nursing research: reading, using, and creating evidence (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

This post for me comes at a difficult time. We just admitted my uncle to ICU today. He is 86 and at end stages of CHF, has fallen 15 times in the past 6 months and is really struggling. I feel that he is ready to go as well as my Aunt realizes that his time is short. That being said as I left the hospital today after my shift and visiting with him I realized no DNR has been initiated. I feel this is both of their wishes and I should have asked the nursing staff if this had been completed but being a niece I didn’t want to over step my boundaries. This will be at the top of my list in the morning. I will have to address this because I do not want to see him suffer. He has been a great man in my life, strong, handsome and well loved by everyone, but now he is feeble and in pain. Thank you for your post it really has given me comfort in knowing this is a task I must approach.

This is very interesting Charles! Wow! Such a sad situation! It is full of ethical issues! I really wished that the UK would have allowed the Little Charlie to come to the U.S. and to have received experimental treatment! There were no definite results! Then, the quality of life and continued treatment costs were other things to consider! My heart goes out to the parents! Thanks for sharing!

Here’s a timeline of recent events from this case:

“America’s vice president has expressed his sadness for the death of Charlie Gard, the 11-month-old British baby whose fight to seek medical treatment in the United States sparked an international uproar and long legal battle.

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence posted on Facebook: “Saddened to hear of the passing of Charlie Gard. Karen & I offer our prayers & condolences to his loving parents during this difficult time.”

Pence’s boss, President Donald Trump, had offered his support to the child, whose legal battle also attracted the attention of Pope Francis.

Charlie died on Friday, one week shy of his first birthday.

8:05 p.m.

Great Ormond Street Hospital in London has expressed its condolences after the death of Charlie Gard, the terminally ill child who died on week short of his first birthday.

The hospital, which had been at the center of a legal battle with the child’s parents, issued a statement late Friday following news of the child’s death.

The hospital said “everyone at Great Ormond Street Hospital sends their heartfelt condolences to Charlie’s parents and loved ones at this very sad time.”

Charlie suffered from a rare genetic disease, mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which left him brain damaged and unable to move his limbs or breathe unaided.

6:35 p.m.

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said the Charlie Gard case shows how the medical profession is struggling to adjust to the age of social media, which puts the general public in the middle of decisions that in the past would have been private issues for doctors and the family.

Caplan, of New York University’s Langone Medical Center says “I do think that in an era of social media, it is possible to rally huge numbers of people to your cause … the medical ethics have not caught up.”

The heated commentary prompted Judge Francis to criticize the effects of social media and those “who know almost nothing about this case but who feel entitled to express opinions.”

Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, Britain’s premier children’s hospital, reported that its doctors and nurses were receiving serious threats over Charlie’s case. London police are investigating.

6:35 p.m.

Under British law, it is common for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child. In such cases, the rights of the child take primacy over the parents‘ right to decide what’s best for their offspring. The principle applies even in cases where parents have an alternative point of view, such as when religious beliefs prohibit blood transfusions.

Charlie Gard’s case made it all the way to Britain’s Supreme Court as Charlie’s parentsrefused to accept decisions by a series of judges who backed Great Ormond Street. But the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, saying it was in Charlie’s best interests that he be allowed to die.

The case caught the attention of Donald Trump and Pope Francis after the European Court of Human Rights refused to intervene. The two leaders sent tweets of support for Charlie and his parents, triggering a surge of grassroots action, including a number of U.S. right-to-life activists who flew to London to support Charlie’s parents.

6:35 p.m.

Charlie Gard’s parents raised more than 1.3 million pounds ($1.7 million) to take him to the United States for an experimental medical therapy they believed could prolong his life. But Charlie’s doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London objected, saying the treatment wouldn’t help and might cause him to suffer.

The dispute ended up in court.

Charlie’s case became a flashpoint for debates on the rights of both children and parents, on health-care funding, medical interventions, the responsibilities of hospitals and medical workers and the role of the state.

After months of legal battles, High Court judge Nicholas Francis ruled Thursday that Charlie should be transferred to a hospice and taken off life support after his parents and the hospital failed to agree on an end-of-life care plan for the infant.

6:35 p.m.

Charlie Gard, the terminally ill British baby at the center of a legal and ethical battle that attracted the attention of Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump has died. He was one week shy of his first birthday.

Charlie suffered from a rare genetic disease, mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which left him brain damaged and unable to move his limbs or breathe unaided.

A family spokeswoman, Alison Smith-Squire, confirmed Charlie’s death on Friday, a day after a judge ordered he be taken to a hospice for his final hours.

His mother Connie Yates said in a statement “our beautiful little boy has gone, we’re so proud of him.”

Reference

The Associated, P. (2017). The Latest: Catholic groups praise Charlie Gard’s parents

NR 439 Discussion Ethical and Legal Issues