Introduction
It could be hardly doubted that the nursing profession is closely connected with various ethical questions and dilemmas. Therefore, the American Nurses Association (ANA), which is the leading policy developer in the sphere of advanced nursing practice, implemented the Code of Ethics for Nurses, which was recently renewed in 2015 (Epstein & Turner, 2015). This Code comprises nine original provisions, or tenets, each of them describing a particular aspect of a nursing professional’s responsibilities toward patients, colleagues, society as a whole, and themselves. This paper aims to choose two tenets of the Code and analyze them to retrieve their purpose, to describe their application to practice, and to provide several examples of their use.
1st Tenet’s Application to Practice
It is possible to begin the discussion with the observation of the first provision of the Code since it conveys the most fundamental aspects of the nursing profession. This tenet demands the nursing practitioner (1) to respect the human dignity, (2) to maintain relationships with patients, (3) to concern the nature of health, (4) to provide patients with right for self-determination, and (5) to maintain relationships with colleagues (Winland-Brown, Lachman, & Swanson, 2015). Concerning the application of the first two aspects of the tenet to practice, it should be noted that a nurse cannot violate fundamental human rights, such as the right for confidentiality.
For example, a nurse should not disclose the details about the patient’s illness to third parties (Winland-Brown et al., 2015). As for my perspective on the provision’s application, I would maintain the patient’s right for self-determination because I consider the patient’s choice and opinion to be a significantly important part of nursing practice. It would help in maximizing the quality of care since the proper feedback from the caretaker would give an additional context for treatment decision-making. Therefore, it would enhance my nursing practice because I would achieve better results in caring.
4th Tenet’s Application to Practice
Further, it is possible to discuss the 4th tenet of the Code because it conveys a significantly important message: it is the purpose of every nursing professional “to promote health and to provide optimal care” (Winland-Brown et al., 2015, p. 270). Accordingly, this provision is based upon three primary concepts of (1) authority, (2) accountability, and (3) responsibility (Winland-Brown et al., 2015). Concerning accountability, it is possible to observe that every nursing professional should perceive the clinical technologies only as adjuncts to their skills, but not as a substitution. For example, the nurse takes full responsibility for the whole process of caregiving and every related mistake, even if it happens due to technical problems. I would use these principles to enhance my nursing practice because this provision serves as a blueprint for higher nursing standards, which are to be implemented by every practitioner. If every advanced nurse was responsible and accountable for their decisions along with the proper use of authority (i.e. without abusing it), it wound evidently maximizes the quality of patient care.
Conclusion
Finally, it is possible to come to several conclusions. First of all, it is essential to mention that the Code of Ethics for Nurses provides a very profound basis for ethical decision-making in the sphere of nursing practice. This paper analyzed two provisions of the Code. As a result of the analysis, it is possible to conclude that respect for human uniqueness, dignity, and worth along with responsible and accountable decision-making can significantly enhance the quality of nursing practice.
References
Epstein, B., & Turner, M. (2015). The nursing code of ethics: Its value, its history. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 20(2). Web.
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), 268-271.