Legal And Ethical Issues In Mental Health Nursing Nursing Essay

Legal And Ethical Issues In Mental Health nursing Nursing EssayThis assignment aims to critic aloney appraise an honorable conflict in relation to the care provided to a patient. It will explore how ethical closings are reached and how they fag directly influence patient care. To achieve this aim the author will examine a slip-up study of a patient whose care he was involved with whilst in placement.We will looking at how, after an episode of self-harm, the patient ref purposed any medical come up toment for the go against and how this posed an ethical plight for the nursing staff involved in their care. Using the application of the Mental subject matter flake (MCA) (Great Britain (GB) 2005) and an established model for ethical finish making, we will look at how the decision of whether or not to enforce interference for the suffer was formulated and makeioned.Ethics raft be seen as the study of human look at and lessonity (Buka 2008). It is about people reasoning, th inking and applying a process of reflection (Adshead 2010) however these people may have opposing views, values and experiences on which to hateful their moral judgements to define what is the right and wrong course of action (Hendrick 2009) and the dominions employ to decide this, not only by the individual just now also deep down social groups and societies. (Adshead 2010). From this we freighter surmise that ethics is a complex system of reflective thinking, which is used in the search for a standard that can be used to judge your own actions, or the actions of others, in spite of appearance your own moral code.The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC 2008) stipulates that nurses must respect a patients right to confidentiality at either ages and ensure that the patient is informed about how information concerning them is shared. In accordance with this the name of the patient has been castrated and permission has been sought from the patient to use them in the case stud y (Appendix 1).Case Study.Anitas story.Anita is a young woman with a primary diagnosis of emotion ally unstable personality disorder borderline cause as defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO 2010). During a one-to-one remedy session Anita disclosed that she was having strong urges to self-harm. As such(prenominal) the alterative session concentrated on exploring her feelings surrounding her impulses, alternate coping mechanisms to manage her thoughts of self-harm and strategies to help maintain her safety upon the ward.As she felt that the pressure of being always watched would unsettle her hike, thus not allowing her to manage her own feelings it was initially agreed to place Anita on intermittent observation as opposed to constant within the policy on self harm produced by the service that was caring for her (Oxford Health DATE). This approach was agreed in collaboration with Anita and the wider team as a way of her taking responsibility for her own decisions.Later in the shift Anita approached staff and stated that she had overwhelming urges to self-harm and that she had acted upon them. She was taken to the clinic room where the wound could be cleaned and assessed. Anita presented with a laceration to the inside of her thigh which was deep enough to expose the adipose tissue beneath, however was not deemed by the medical staff to be life threatening. supply explained to Anita that the wound was deep enough to require stitching although not life threatening and advised her that she would indigence to attend the minor injuries unit of the local full general hospital for assessment of the wound. At this time Anita, out-of-pocket to her psychic state, could not fully appreciate the nature of the wound and felt that she needed to punish herself further by refusing intervention. The nurses on duty cleaned and bandaged the wound and allowed Anita time to forecast the implications of her decision further. When Anita had calmed the nurse had a d iscussion surrounding the implications of not having the wound sutured such as infection, Anitas possible need to attack the wound in the future and pain relief issues, However Anita maintained her decision not to have the wound sutured.Following a wider team discussion around whether Anita down the stairsstood the severity of the wound, thus having faculty to make a decision to lour treatment, the Responsible Clinician (RC) let loose to Anita and attempted to persuade her to have the wound sutured. As Anita was still refusing to have the wound sutured the RC decided that an assessment would need to be carried out to ascertain whether Anita had the capacity to decide to refuse treatment. Upon completion of the assessment it was decided that Anita did have capacity to make decisions surrounding treatment at that time, within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act (GB 2005). This decision was reached due to Anita being able to understand the information being given to her, bein g able to retain the information and weigh it up to make a decision to refuse treatment.Although this appeared to be an unwise decision, which felt un homely to the team, it was agreed to monitor the wound, keep it clean and dry and continue to talk to Anita about her thoughts and feelings surrounding getting medical treatment for the wound. This collaborative approach allowed Anita opportunities to explore her emotions, thoughts and feelings and promote her self-reliance whilst still allowing her to decide to have the wound sutured should she change her mind.The main legal and ethical dilemmas that can be extracted from this case study are whether the Anitas capacity to make decisions about her treatment should be overridden by use of the Mental Capacity Act (GB 2005) and whether Anitas ability to make self-directed decisions surrounding her care should outweigh the nurses agreement towards beneficence.The Legal Dilemma. Mental Capacity.What legal Dilemma can be hypothesised as underpinning the decision making process of the mental health professionals in this case? Anita initially made her decision to refuse treatment short after self-harming. Self-harm has been strongly associated with borderline personality disorder (Motz 2008) where thoughts of self-loathing and self-punishment are common precipitators the act of self harm can be seen as a prognostic of internal turmoil, an expression of internal pain or as controlling factor to maintain a level of care (Grocutt 2009). This may indicate that Anita was under a great deal of distress at the time, which could have affected her capacity to make sound decisions however her later decision of continuing to refuse treatment was based on her own morals and values towards her body that may have included these thoughts of self-loathing and the need to be punished. Although a person, under set off four Mental Health Act (GB 2007) can be treated for mental disorder without their consent, it is important to note that a physical problem can only be treated without consent should the person lacks capacity and treatment is deemed to be in their best interests under the auspice of the Mental Capacity Act (GB 2007, spirit 2009).To help determine whether Anita has capacity, The Mental Capacity Act (2005) sets out a two stage functional approach. Firstly the practitioner needs to ascertain whether the person being assessed has some sort of disturbance of the mind and, if such a disturbance exists then it must affect their ability to make decisions when they need to (Department of native Affairs (DoCA) 200745). If this is not the case then the person cannot be seen as lacking capacity under the Act (GB 2005, DoCA 2007). In considering whether Anita needed to make the decision around treatment, we can see that, as the wound was not life threatening, it was decided to allow her time to settle and re-approach the question of treatment. The Mental Capacity Act (GB 2005) is clear in expressing that ca pacity is time and decision specific. In deciding that the decision could be made at a later time not only complies with the Act but also promotes Anitas autonomy. As the wound could be safely managed in the short term upon the ward the decision to allow Anita time to weigh up the information was the correct one to make.Conflicting ethical principles and dilemmasLakeman (2009) points out that an ethical dilemma occurs when there are a multitude of alternative courses of action to deal with a particular situation. Conflicting moral principles may create difficult ethical dilemmas for nurses by having to contravene one moral obligation to uphold another (Beauchamp Childress 2009). Anitas ability to make autonomous decisions surrounding her care should outweigh the nurses obligation towards beneficence. However this may not feel entirely comfortable for the nurse. In mental health nursing, autonomy is sometimes overridden in the interests of promoting the principle of beneficence (Lak eman 2009). Which can make the nurses ethical dilemma difficult to manage due to balancing the two valid ethical principles of autonomy (respecting and supporting decisions making) and beneficence (relieving or minimising harm in the best interest of the patient) (Hendrick 2004, Beauchamp Childress 2009). To answer the question we need to examine how the dilemma sits within an ethical theory and the principles that apply.Beauchamp and Childress (2009) devised four basic moral principles which function as guidelines for professional ethical decision making. The principles of autonomy (freedom to act on your own belief), Nonmaleficence (obligation to avoid doing harm), Beneficence (providing benefits and help) and Justice (fair distribution of benefits, risk and cost) which are derived from a duty based theory of Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) (Beauchamp Childress 2009).Principle 1 Autonomy. pry for autonomy flows from the recognition that all persons have unconditional worth, each havin g the capacity to determine his or her own moral destiny. To violate a persons autonomy is to treat that person merely as a means that is, in accordance with others goals without regard to the persons own goals.Beauchamp Childress (2009 103) after KantAutonomy is the freedom and ability to act in a self determined manner (Butts sizeable 2008 42) and the right of a rational person to achieve personal decisions without any outside interference. Therefore the principle of respecting autonomy concerns the nurses acknowledgement of, and obligation in respecting, Anitas decision over her own life.It may be that Anita is already feeling a loss of autonomy or disempowerment by the very nature of being a patient upon a secure ward and being under the Mental Health Act (GB 2007) and the lying-in of her basic autonomous decisions such as when to eat, sleep or who she resides with. Therefore it may need to be considered whether Anitas is refusal of treatment is something that she feels in c ontrol of, thus a way in which she feels empowered.Principle 2 Beneficence.Morality requires not only that we treat persons autonomously and refrain from harming them, but also that we contribute to their welfare and is therefore a moral obligation to act for the benefit of others. These beneficial actions fall under the heading of beneficence.Beauchamp and Childress (2009 197)Beneficence can be seen as actions to benefit and promote the welfare of others (Butts Rich 2008). All actions that are performed by nurses can be regarded as having a moral dimension, most of which are for the benefit of the patient (Edwards 2009).The NMC Code of Professional carry is clear in stating that nurses have an obligation to both protect and promote the health and wellbeing of patients as their primary consideration (NMC 20082) and this is no different for mental health nurses working with patients who self-harm. This statement clearly incorporates the principle of beneficence and shows that the n urses in the case study are considering whether Anita should have medical treatment for the wound apply upon her due to the principle of beneficence as described due to the worries of the wound becoming infected if not sutured.The dilemma.When nurses experience the ethical dilemma of having to enforce treatment irrespective of a patients right to autonomy, they can be seen as working in a paternalistic manner (Butts Rich 2008). In Anitas case, the nurses worry that the consequences of the wound becoming infected is driving their desire to treat the wound irrespective of Anitas wishes. However, although the actions on behalf of nurses is clearly driven by obligations towards beneficence, nurses need to weigh up the harms and benefits of enforcing treatment before acting in such a way as to produce the best outcome for Anita (Edwards 2009). A paternalistic approach is frequently used to infringe upon a persons right to autonomy. This infringement is supported by the principle of ben eficence, which is the argument frequently used to impose treatment on patients whether they want it or not (Buka 2008 29).Should the decision to treat Anita for her self harm regardless of her wishes have gone ahead, there may have been a risk of impacting on the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship. This relationship is built upon trust as well as purposeful and effective communication (Buka 2008) and is considered to be the cornerstone of nursing care (Lakeman 2009, Pryjmachuk 2011).Therefore the nurses would need to consider future risk as part of the ethical decision making process. Enforcing treatment on Anita may produce barriers to the therapeutic relationship such as difficulties in trusting the nurse in the future, disengagement from therapeutic communication, opposition and rejection of future treatment, increased self harming behaviours due to the trauma and hostility towards others (Kettles et al 2007, Byrt 2010), all of which may stop Anita from telling the nursing t eam when she self-harms in future episodes of distress. Which raises the principle of Nonmaleficence (doing no harm), in this instance to the therapeutic relationship, wellbeing and care of Anita.The decision to manage the wound on the ward and allow Anita time to calm and consider her options is, in the authors opinion, the correct course of action to take. As the wound was uncomplete life threatening or of such a degree that it could not be safety managed upon the ward enabled the staff to consider the possibility of allowing Anita to make an autonomous resource. In considering Anitas wishes and agreeing a management plan to care for the wound incorporates both principles of Anitas autonomy and the nurses obligation towards beneficence.Beneficence could be interpreted to incorporate the patients autonomous choice as the best interests of the patient are intimately linked with their preferences from which are derived our primary duties towards them (Beauchamp Childress 2009207) . If the nurses obligation to act beneficently is informed by the patients choices and preferences, then the respect for the patients autonomy will ultimately override any paternalistic actions on the part of the nurse (Beauchamp Childress 2009). This would not only encourage a supportive nurse-patient relationship but also provides care that is holistic, develops Anitas confidence in being able to negotiate her care and allows her to take greater personal responsibility, thus instilling empowerment and hope, all of which improve the potential for recovery.The practice of paternalism is now generally discouraged in health care (Butts Rich) and is considered unjustifiable in cases where the patient has capacity to make a decision (Edwards 2009, Beauchamp Childress 2009).Conclusion.Every decision that a nurse makes concerning the care of a patient needs to be considered from an ethical base. Any decision made from this ethical viewpoint has a higher probability of producing the bes t outcome under any given circumstance.The conflicting principles of autonomy and beneficence that have been presented within this case study would both be ethically and morally correct courses of action to take. From this we can surmise that a morally correct course of action may involve two opposing principles being applicable in any one situation.Are large proportion of moral and ethical dilemmas that are face by nurses stem from the conflicting principles of autonomy and beneficence. However, the nurses ability to critically appraise risks and benefits will help them to make decisions that are beneficial to the patient involved. In supporting(a) autonomy for Anita involves taking risks on the part of the nurses which may go against their principles of Nonmaleficence and beneficence. However with collaborative working practices this case study has shown that solutions can be found in even the most complicated of nursing dilemmas.Word Count 2687.