Question

Without authorization, a nurse administers an extra dose of narcotic tranquilizer to an agitated client. The nurse's coworker observes this action but does nothing for fear of repercussion. What is the ethical interpretation of the coworker's lack of involvement?

1) Taking no action is still considered an action by the coworker.
2) Taking no action releases the coworker from ethical responsibility.
3) Taking no action is advised when potential adverse consequences are foreseen.
4) Taking no action is acceptable, because the coworker is only a bystander.

Answer 1

The coworker's lack of involvement in the situation can be interpreted as an action, and it goes against the principle of nonmaleficence.

Step-by-step explanation:

The ethical interpretation of the coworker's lack of involvement in the situation where a nurse administers an extra dose of narcotic tranquilizer without authorization is that taking no action is still considered an action by the coworker. The coworker witnessed the nurse's actions but chose not to intervene due to fear of repercussion. However, by not taking any action, the coworker is allowing the potentially harmful situation to continue, which goes against the principle of nonmaleficence that requires healthcare professionals to act in ways that do not cause harm to others.