Answer To: Question attached below in a file?
Ayan answered on Oct 08 2023
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 2
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT
Table of contents
Introduction 3
Body 3
I. Autonomy 3
II. Beneficence 4
III. Non-Malfeasance 4
IV. Justice 5
Other Ethical Concepts 6
Ethical Theories 7
I. Utilitarian Thinking 7
II. Deontological Thinking 8
III. Virtue Ethics Thinking 8
IV. Ethics-of-Care Thinking 9
V. Natural Law 9
Conclusion 10
References 11
Introduction
Complicated ethical questions are raised when the subject of healthcare access is discussed in connection to taking part in a national vaccination campaign. The four bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice will be examined in this article as we examine this topic in relation to them. We'll also examine other ethical ideas including human dignity, truthfulness, codes of ethics, and standards of behavior for professionals. We will also use moral theories like utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, ethics of care, and natural law in order to offer a thorough comprehension. We'll give a range of viewpoints throughout the article to foster a well-rounded conversation. Finally, we will outline our ethical position on whether those who refuse to take part in a nationwide vaccination program should have less access to healthcare.
Body
I. Autonomy
A fundamental bioethical notion known as autonomy emphasizes a person's freedom to make their own educated healthcare decisions (Zimet et al., 2021). Autonomy implies that people should have the freedom to decide whether or not to get vaccinations in the context of vaccination programs. However, difficulties occur when public health concerns demand a high vaccination rate to develop herd immunity, especially for illnesses with a high risk of serious effects, as COVID-19. Those who favor limiting unvaccinated people's access to medical treatment contend that doing so is important for the protection of the public's health. They claim that unvaccinated people may expose vulnerable patients to illnesses that can be prevented by vaccination when they seek healthcare. An individual with a compromised immune system, for instance, may be at danger if exposed to an unvaccinated person having a contagious disease. Respecting individual autonomy, however, is still essential. People may have legitimate reservations about the efficacy of vaccines, mistrust of the healthcare system, or ethical issues. One may argue that requiring vaccinations or restricting access to healthcare is a paternalistic tactic that infringes on people's liberty.
II. Beneficence
The obligation to work toward a patient's best potential result is emphasized by the beneficence principle (Ismail et al., 2020). Beneficence contends that universal vaccination can shield the populace against infectious illnesses and their possible side effects in the context of immunization programs. The healthcare system may save needless suffering and fatalities by limiting the spread of illnesses like measles or influenza. However, the ethical conflict between beneficence and free choice manifests itself when people decline vaccination. Mandatory vaccination proponents contend that some sacrifices are necessary for the greater good, including limiting access to healthcare for those who are not vaccinated. They assert that the goal is to minimize the spread of disease in order to maximize the advantages to the public health. On the other hand, detractors argue that beneficence shouldn't compromise personal choice. They contend that coercive methods can damage people's faith in healthcare institutions and have unforeseen results. For instance, if people believe that these measures are unduly invasive, they may be less inclined to seek medical attention or follow public health recommendations.
III. Non-Malfeasance
The avoidance of patient injury is required under the non-malfeasance principle, which guides healthcare practitioners. By reducing the potential damage of infectious illnesses through immunization, non-malfeasance is used in the context of vaccination. The safety of vaccines is extensively evaluated, and in most cases, the advantages of immunization outweigh the dangers. However, when taking into account possible vaccination damage, ethical issues surface. Some people may develop negative side effects, which can range from minor injection site pain to more severe allergic responses. These unfavorable outcomes might be alarming, and people might worry that vaccinations would hurt them. Beneficence and non-malfeasance must be balanced (Warren, Kisely & Siskind, 2021). Vaccines may have certain dangers, but they are usually seen to be safe, and the potential harm from illnesses that may be prevented by vaccination is sometimes far larger. Healthcare providers must be open and honest with patients, addressing their worries and giving them accurate information about the dangers and advantages of immunization.
IV. Justice
Equitable access to medical resources is required by the justice concept. Justice mandates that all people have fair and equitable access to vaccinations and medical treatment in...