There is a dilemma of who should go back to the burning ward and help those patients in help. There are five people on top of the roof who have escaped the fire; four of them are able-bodied as one carries with her sick child. They have to make a decision of who will remain on top of the building and who will go down the burning ward and save the remaining victims.
According to the theory of consequentialism, which aims at maximizing the greater good for the largest number of people (Fairchild, 2010); Margaret the Registered Nurse, had made the right choice. Dr. John was right as he had thought of the best way to help those who were trapped, unlike Margaret, who had no plan.
The problem could have been resolved easily through a carefully planned operations and a consensus to be reached among the people. Margaret should not have run inside but help Dr. John convince Peter and Joseph the importance of helping those who are trapped.
With the alternative mentioned above, most of the people would have been saved from the fire. It is most likely that Margaret had minimal chances of survival on her own, leave alone saving any of the victims.
The first step would have to convince Peter and Joseph the moral sense of thinking of others other than themselves. After the two or one has been fully convinced, the next step would be to formulate a plan of how to go inside the burning ward, save people and still come out alive. Only three should have entered leaving one to stay with Mary on the roof top. This flow of the alternatives and plan of action would have resulted in positive results, as opposed to what has happened in the case study.
References
Corley, M. C., Minick, P., Elswick, R., & Jacobs, M. (2011). Nurse moral distress and ethical work environment. Nursing Ethics. doi:10.1191/0969733005ne809oa
Fairchild, R. M. (2010). Practical ethical theory for nurses responding to complexity in care.Nursing Ethics. doi:10.1177/0969733010361442
