The case clearly presents a number of concerns permeating the ethical, legal and moral boundaries. The situation would inevitably leave any professional disturbed. For starters, it is imperative to appreciate the role of professional nurses in as far as delivering services to clients (read patients) is concerned. It is essential to approach health issues from a dual perspective whereby the patient’s needs equally inform the manner of operations and service delivery. However, the dual approach becomes problematic the moment the demands go against what is commonly referred to as public policy. It is incumbent hence for a professional in such situations to consider the tripartite questions which are ethical, legal and moral.
Foremost, the ethical issues at hand entail the requirements for disclosure and honesty. In that vein, it becomes problematic for the professional to arrive at a concise decision as to whether to disclose the material issues to both the patient and his or her relations. In that strain, the nurse may be in the know of the impossibilities of recovery and recuperation given the state of health of the patient. However, relying on the professional and religious codes of ethics, it is not permitted and encouraged that a patient be informed of her nearing death. Such a matter is subject to speculation and needs to be without the knowledge of the patient. At the same time, encouraging the patient that he or she stands to recover against the supervening medical backdrop is dishonest and by extension unethical.
Secondly, considering the legal issues and questions, the situation becomes even more troublesome and chaotic. It should be appreciated that the law in its current form and state does not permit euthanasia or any form of voluntary killing for that matter. In that context, having the knowledge of one intending to commit suicide or perpetrate voluntary death even if on her person dictates for action from the nurse. Legally, as a nurse, therefore, one in the possession of such knowledge is required to inform the authorities. The nurse must see to it that the supposed voluntary killing is prevented and measures taken in the said prevention. The same train of action must be read together with the fact that perhaps this information was shared with the nurse in confidence. In that respect, the action pursued by the nurse would be in clear breach of the confidence between the nurse and her patient. One wonders thus which legal requirement reigns supreme given the overriding differences and conflicts.
Finally, the moral questions resonate around the moral imperatives that inform the philosophy of the nurse. The answer is based on whether the morals of the nurse are tolerant or intolerant of the suicide idea. For a nurse intolerant of the idea, the moral approach perhaps would entail discouragement of the client from such a train of thought. On the other hand, a tolerant nurse would not necessarily discourage the idea. In fact, the latter may sympathize with the patient equally alive to the state of affairs and the fact that recuperation is a far-fetched and almost impossible.
In conclusion, as enunciated in the discussion above, the situation presents several questions than answers. It is equally imperative to note that the decision by the nurse depends much on a number of factors including the nurse’s personal philosophy. The course pursued by the nurse after the incident is not cast on stone and may take a peculiar character depending on the nurse’s philosophy.
References
Aamodt, M. (2011). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An Applied Approach. New York: Cengage Learning.
Dunlap, K. (2008). Religion: Its function in human life: A study of religion from the point of view of psychology. New York: Cengage Learning.
Farrell, A. (2011). Organ Shortage: Ethics, Law and Pragmatism. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
Lilly, R., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2011). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. New York: Sage.
