Reference no: EM133853441
CASE STUDY
Kyrina works for a community health centre that is currently tasked to deliver COVID19 vaccinations. As part of the national strategic vaccination plan, the usual health care services delivered at the health centre have been moved to secondary facility 12 kilometres away. This has allowed the entire health centre to be staged for COVID vaccine delivery only. All individuals must make an appointment prior to attending for vaccination and are always required to wear a mask within the health centre. Kyrina is working at the screening desk, when she is approached by a man who does not have an appointment and is not wearing a mask, but demands to be given a vaccination, saying "it is my right to access healthcare in Australia". Following this, Kyrina is approached by an older couple who have come to the health centre to receive their yearly influenza vaccination. They were not aware that the usual health services had been moved, and state they are unable to travel to the secondary clinic. Kyrina knows that influenza vaccines are available still in their clinic and considers administering the influenza vaccine even though the services are not supposed to be offered during this COVID vaccine rollout.
QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the concept of "Duty of care' as it relates to the role as a health care professional in the case study.
2. Explain the concept of negligence and how it relates to non-malefience in the case study.
3. Discuss the concept of veracity as it relates to the case study.
4. Discuss the concept of justice relating to the case study.
5. Reflecting on the case study, do you think it would ever be ethically acceptable foe health care professionals to distinguish between 'deserving' patients and those who do not 'deserve' to receive limited health care resources? If so on what grounds? If not, why not?