A solution to a specific ethical dilemma faced by a health care professional by applying ethical principles.

Full Answer Section

Ethical Principles:

• Non-maleficence: The principle of doing no harm extends to protecting the health of the community.
• Beneficence: Healthcare professionals have an obligation to promote the well-being of their patients and the public.
• Confidentiality: Patients have a right to privacy and expect their medical information to be kept confidential.
• Autonomy: Patients have the right to make their own healthcare decisions, even if those decisions are risky.

The Dilemma:

Dr. Thompson faces a conflict between these principles. Protecting public health (non-maleficence and beneficence) might require breaching patient confidentiality and potentially infringing on Mr. Davies' autonomy.

Possible Solutions:

1. Persuasion and Education: Dr. Thompson can try to emphasize the potential consequences of Mr. Davies' actions and educate him on the importance of public health measures. She can explain the anonymous reporting process for close contacts and offer support services to address his concerns about privacy and discrimination.

2. Limited Disclosure with Public Health Authorities: If persuasion fails, Dr. Thompson might consider a limited disclosure to public health authorities. She can report the case anonymously, focusing on the specific illness and potential for an outbreak, without revealing Mr. Davies' identity. This allows authorities to take preventive measures without violating confidentiality entirely.

3. Mandatory Reporting vs. Legal Action: Some states have mandatory reporting laws for certain contagious diseases. However, Dr. Thompson should explore this option only as a last resort after exhausting other avenues. Legal action can further damage the doctor-patient relationship and discourage future patients from seeking care.

Considerations and Follow-up:

• Balancing Confidentiality and Public Health: When making any decision, Dr. Thompson needs to weigh the potential harm to public health against the potential harm of breaching patient confidentiality.
• Documentation: Regardless of the solution, Dr. Thompson should thoroughly document her efforts to communicate with Mr. Davies and the rationale behind her chosen course of action.
• Support and Resources: Dr. Thompson should seek support from colleagues, professional organizations, or ethics committees if needed.

Conclusion:

There is no easy answer to this ethical dilemma. Dr. Thompson must navigate a complex situation by prioritizing the health of both her patient and the community. Open communication, education, and a measured approach can help guide her decision-making process. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve the best possible outcome for both Mr. Davies and public health while upholding core ethical principles to the greatest extent possible.

Note: This paper is approximately 3 pages long and provides a framework for addressing the ethical dilemma. You can expand on specific sections by including relevant case studies, legal aspects of mandatory reporting in your specific region, or exploring the potential consequences (positive and negative) of each solution in greater detail.

Sample Answer

Scenario:

Dr. Sarah Thompson, a primary care physician, is treating a patient, Mr. William Davies, who has been diagnosed with a highly contagious and potentially life-threatening airborne illness. Mr. Davies refuses to disclose his close contacts or isolate himself, citing concerns about privacy and potential discrimination. Dr. Thompson is worried about a potential outbreak if Mr. Davies spreads the illness.