Participative Ethical Decision Making (PEDM) - Research Paper on Nursing

The Calabros Participative Ethical Decision Making (PEDM) Model provides guidelines to address ethical dilemmas equitably. It involves assessing and resolving ethical dilemmas systematically which helps to eliminate time-consuming and extra steps to lead to an equitable solution (Winland, Lachman & Swanson, 2015). In this case, the family can arrive at a decision through the seven steps provided by PEDM.

First Step: Is There A Problem Which Is Completely Satisfactory To All Parties?

The problem here is that the family is divided on whether to accept the health care teams judgment of impending death of Ms. C or wait for efforts of the physician. The physician has promised them to prolong the life of their family member to interpret her wishes but her condition is worsening thus reaching to a decision is becoming a huge challenge.

Second Step: Who Are The Participants, Problem Issue And When To Decide?

The family members, Ms. C, and physicians are the participants. The issue is how they will proceed with the situation; they either accept to have lost her wishes and wait for her death or try to look for ways to understand her desires as the physician keep her alive for some time. A quick decision needs to be made because the victim may die any moment.

Third Step: What Professional Standards And Code Of Conducts Are Involved?

The physicians are required to uphold patience, accountability, and protection of rights of both patients and their family members. In this case, the physicians should hear the decision made by the family members because they are in need of valuable information. They, however, must determine safe ways to assist in extracting the information because they are accountable for any medical procedure under medical professional standards (Calabro & Tukoski, 2003).

Fourth Step: What Are Patients Principles and Values Related to the Dilemma?

Since the patients condition is deteriorating and is incoherent, special decisions need to be made basing in mind the patients rights. The doctors can conduct a procedure which leads to her death to avoid undergoing painful moments. On the other hand, she deserves more time to live as one physician had promised to maintain her health for some time. The professional medical standards require critical patients to receive high medical care unless medical practitioners and family members decide otherwise (Ulrich, Taylor, Soeken, Donnell, Farrar, Danis & Grady, 2010).

Fifth Step: Mutual Exchange of Goals, Desires, and Feelings about the Situation

The family members should provide their perception of the way forward. If they require the wishes of the patient, they will allow the physician to prolong her life, and if they have given up, they then either wait for her ultimate death or allow doctors to perform a medical procedure to end her life. On the other hand, the physicians will provide their decisions concerning the matter because they are well conversant with the risks involved in each decision to be undertaken (Calabro & Tukoski, 2003).

Sixth Step: Ethical Frameworks That Both Parties Find Acceptable

The physicians and the family seem to agree on the framework of human rights and risks involved in the dilemma. Doing any medical procedure to Ms. C who seems to be in bad condition can be more risk to her health, but also she deserves urgent decision to ease her pains since her condition seems to be leading to death ultimately. This then needs agreement on the way forward.

Seventh Step: Possible Solution That Is Acceptable To Both

After looking at the possible solutions, the family should agree to the health care teams judgment of impending death. There is no need to prolong her life to get her wishes because she is in a state which is beyond physicians help.

References

Calabro, M. D., & Tukoski, B. (2003). Participative ethical decision making. Advance for nurse practitioners, 11(6), 83-89.

Lachman, V. D., Swanson, E. O., & Winland-Brown, J. (2015). The new Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (2015): practical clinical application, part II. Medsurg Nurs, 24(5), 363-366.

Ulrich, C. M., Taylor, C., Soeken, K., ODonnell, P., Farrar, A., Danis, M., & Grady, C. (2010). Everyday ethics: ethical issues and stress in nursing practice. Journal of advanced nursing, 66(11), 2510-2519.

Winland-Brown, J., Lachman, V. D., & Swanson, E. O. C. (2015). The new code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. 2015: Practical clinical application, Part I. Medsurg Nursing, 24(4), 268-71.