Ethics is the determination of what is right and wrong. Because it guides competent medical practitioners, medical ethics is an essential branch of medicine. It is a morality that deals with conflicts between duties and the possible outcomes. Many times, medical professionals face difficulties in fulfilling their obligations. They need to decide which option will be most beneficial and least harmful. It is not easy to make such a decision. Therefore, it is important to weigh the potential consequences and the outcomes.
This case is a classic example in ethical dilemmas surrounding hospital reimbursement after dialysis treatment was provided to illegal immigrants. Federal regulations dictate that patients needing dialysis treatment must be admitted to the emergency room. Doctors cannot challenge the patient’s ability pay for treatment. This causes a conflict over whether undocumented aliens should be treated by doctors (Nordtug 2015). Professional healthcare providers are faced with the dilemma of deciding what is right or wrong.
This study involves both the federal government as well as medical practitioners. The government provides emergency care for patients in need of it. However, undocumented immigrant patients are not eligible for medical attention. Deontology is one of the most applicable theories. (Francis 2017.) Deontology theory is about duty and rights. It does not consider the consequences. Every patient has the right of being treated and seen.
Unitarianism on the other side holds that medical professionals must act morally and provide the greatest benefit to patients. It is morally wrong for a physician to give healthcare to illegal immigrants. Instead, he or she should provide these medicines to the greater public, who have insurance that will reimburse the hospital.
Both the government and medical sectors have created this dilemma by imposing rules and regulations. First, the federal government states that all patients who come to an emergency room must be treated. Relevant medical regulations have prevented undocumented aliens from receiving healthcare. These regulations and rules are inconsistent and present a problem to professionals who provide healthcare.
The dilemma case can lead to many different outcomes. Legal action could be taken against federal regulations and medical professionals who refuse treatment to illegal immigrants. Another option is to negotiate between the federal government to harmonize regulations and rules governing the provision of healthcare to immigrants. Another option is to treat illegal immigrants before turning them over to the federal authorities.
It is not right to ignore regulations and rules established by authorities. However, it is unacceptable for patients to be left to die (Monrouxe & Rees 2017). It is important to weigh the risks and benefits of treating these patients. It is far more important to save human life than following regulations and rules. All patients who require emergency medical care should be treated. To comply with federal obligations, the patient should then be taken into detention after recovering. To answer the question of why the patient is here illegally, the government should also take custody of him or her.
If illegal immigrants are treated, the government could take action against doctors for violating medical regulations. The federal government can protect the health care providers who save lives. Because no one can provide treatment for undocumented migrants who need it, the burden of illegal immigration treatment could be enormous. This could cause financial difficulties for the public health sector.
These options can be governed by the ethical frameworks of justice and nonmaleficence (Francis 2017, 2017). The principle of justice entails the equal and fair provision of healthcare without discrimination.Patients should be treated regardless of their race and citizenship status. Nonmaleficence, which requires health care providers not to cause harm where possible, means that doctors should avoid inflicting more harm on sick patients regardless of their legal status.
The ethical frameworks of justice, nonmaleficence and justice promote universal human right and support the constitution as well as international conventions. The universality of human rights is a hallmark of the globalization of the world. It is against human rights to deny medical attention to an illegal citizen patient (Hopia Lottes & Kane, 2016). It is a rational act of saving human life and has never been used to imprison anyone for protecting human lives. Medical professionals are allowed to see patients in emergency situations regardless of citizenship and origin.
Medical dilemmas are not uncommon and inevitable. Therefore, doctors and nurses must make the right decision in all circumstances. This will avoid the possibility of adverse consequences like the loss of life. However, rules and regulations must be considered before making life-or-death decision. In order to maintain the highest ethical standards, a doctor must consult with others when approaching medical problems.
