Read уour classmates posts and create one response post of 200-300 words on each dіscussion thread. Each response must be substantive, meaning it adds thought and ideas to the discussion. Posts consisting of “nice post” or “I agree” is not substantive. All posts must use at least one reference (preferably more) to support ideas and statements. In-text citations and references must be in APA 6th ed. (2010) format.
Please make sure you are not coping any responses below as all these responses posted in class discussion board. Follow the response instructions provided above. Respond to all three posted below. Thank you
Classmates responses below
1.The Code of Ethics for Nurses
Of the three provisions, I believe the second and third are the most crucial. While all three are vital to the profession of nursing, I think the most important aspect of nursing is advocating for the patient (regardless of how the patient is defined) and putting their interests and well-being ahead of all other aspects of care and/or research. Although Provision 1 creates the expectation of looking out for the patient by practicing “with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth, and unique attributes of every person,” (Winland-Brown, Lachman, & Swanson, 2015), I believe adherence to this provision is subject to the nurse’s bias. In the Jim Crow-era, when non-whites were treated as second-class citizens despite an official status of “separate but equal,” it could be argued that this social norm permitted a substandard treatment of non-whites because their inherent dignity, worth, and unique attributes were second to that of whites. However, Provision 2 and 3 explicitly put the patient at the center of the focus, regardless of the view of the nurse or society.
In the example of Henrietta Lacks, had there been a nurse committed to promoting, advocating for, and protecting the rights of the Lacks family, I believe their legacy would be very different. Instead of Henrietta signing a vague consent for before going into surgery, the nurse would have ensured her understanding of the procedure and the rationale for it, along with the risks. Further, as Henrietta’s conditioned worsened, a nurse whose primary commitment was to the patient (to include to family), would have ensured the Lacks family understood the course of care, what to expect, and that they had informed consent regarding the use of her tissue. If at any point Henrietta or her family refused the care or research, the nurse would demand their wishes be granted. Doing so would likely have built the trust need to bridge the yawning gap between the Hopkins staff and the Lacks family that was ever present in the book (Skoot, 2010).
Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Crown PublishersWinland-Brown, J., Lachman, V.D., & Swanson, E.O. (2015). The new ‘code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements’ (2015): Practical clinical application, part I. MEDSURG Nursing, 24(4), 268-271
2. Tuskegee Experiment
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study from 1932 demonstrated unethical treatment of African Americans since it was an act of discrimination. The purpose of the study was racist in nature. Its intended purpose was to compare if syphilis differs from Caucasian and black. The U.S. Public Health Services never provided informed consent to the uneducated, poor, black men on the intent of the study as well as when the spinal tap procedures were performed (Wikepedia, 2017). The Tuskegee men were from the poorest county and were socially underserved so the doctors, university, and church relied on their status and coerced the men to participate in the study. Their autonomy was not valued by the Public Health either since they were told they would be treated for “bad blood” without the study’s full disclosure (Wikepedia, 2017). The study was supposed to only last for six months but lasted 40 years. There were several instances where this unethical study could have been stopped. The Public Health officials interfered with penicillin treatment, excluded the Tuskegee men from draft, and ignored the Nuremberg Code for the untreated syphilis study to continue (Wikepedia, 2017). Therefore, the U.S. Public Health failed several more ethical principles which include beneficence, fidelity, nonmaleficence, veracity, and universality to the African American community. The study was not halted until the press reported the study to the public and national lawsuit filed on behalf of the Tuskegee participants (Wikepedia, 2017).
While this study was going on, Henrietta Lack’s faced heightened discriminatory treatments. The doctors and scientist that had provided care for Lack’s disregarded her rights since she is a black woman. The doctors did not acknowledged her rights since they felt that services were provided for free so they were free to do whatever they wanted to with her cells and her medical treatments (Skloot, 2010). Therefore, Henrietta’s care was based on the way the treatment for this community which was lack of respect and dignity. In these two popular cases, African American population were targeted as they were not perceived to have rights and were underserved population that made them even more vulnerable. This study reminds us that it is imperative to acknowledge the ethical rights of others, acknowledge our own bias, and acknowledge our practice with ethical princilples in mind.
Wikepedia. .(2017, September). Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.
Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY. Broadway Paperbacks.
3. The Nuremberg Code
The purpose of the Nuremberg Code is to provide guidelines for determining boundaries of legal experiments on human beings.
World War II tragedy to humanity was not limited to losses on battlefield only. Scientific centers and concentration camps were often the workshops for cruel Nazi experiments on human beings, primarily Jewish people. These instances were carefully reviewed at American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt (USHMM, n.d.). One of the biggest problems during the trials was to prove that inhumane experiments were illegal and were found to be a sufficient ground for a serious sentence. German doctors were defending themselves by stating that, at that time, there were neither national nor international laws that would differentiate legal from illegal experiments. The result of this case was a development of ten concepts or parameters which defined legitimate experiments. They became known as the Nuremberg Code.
Although the Nuremberg Code never received its legal power, it still stands as a cornerstone for today’s scientists and doctors in determining necessary and sufficient criteria of legal and moral nature for any experiment on human beings. The Nuremberg Code protects patients from any procedure performed on them without their consent. On the other hand, it acts as guidelines for researchers giving them assurance of the rightfulness of their actions. The Nuremberg Code, followed by Code of Ethics, condemns a situation, where a patient involved in a procedure would be found fully unaware of the its nature and details (Winland-Brown, Lachman, & Swanson, 2015). A patient has to be fully informed and educated about purpose, course, and outcomes of a procedure or a study he/she is involved in. Moreover, the Nuremberg Code outlines necessary conditions, correct methodology, and level of skills for personnel to be able to perform accurate and legally acceptable study. Thus, contemporary ethical and moral standards for scientific medical research are based on the set of guidelines that was once developed and known as the Nuremberg Code.