Thedecision on how to continue to take care of the patient has dividedthe nurses down in the middle. Mr. A has terminal cancer affectinghis lower spine and pelvic bones, severe pain in the lower back alsopelvic area every time he attempts to move. There are two differentapproaches to the patient with one camp is set to turn Mr. A everytwo hours to impede further skin breakdown and respiratory distresstherefore if left unattended will most likely speed his death. Theother camp consider that because of his diagnosed terminal cancer thevery two hours turning will result in unnecessary pain consequentlywould not be of benefit to the patient. All these nursing camps areright to advance their stands because it is their prerogative toprovide the best care for the patient (Yarbro et al., 2010, p.1860).
Thepoint here is the integration of every intervention to meet anyexpected or unexpected outcomes in a cancer patient and resolvesthem. In this, both camps view their care approach as the mostappropriate to the patient the first camp cites alleviating pain andrespiratory tract secretions should be attended to (Kearney et al.,2006, p. 842). The second camp also stands on the premise that allthat the first camp wants to apply will just lengthen suffering thatwill be detrimental to the patient (Kearney et al., 2006, p. 841).
Inthe case presented at this moment, I would recommend the first camp`sassertion that states that the patient must be turned every twohours. This will be beneficial to the family who desires to see theirmember alive for the longest period. They would be less distressedwith the medical care and attention that is provided consistent withthe nurses expected medical provision. This is consistent with thenurses oath that nurses are bound with ethically therefore the promptprovision of nurses care without resorting to the patient will diesoon anyway is morally right (Verschoor et al., 1997, p. 51). Thenurses’ primary duty is to ensure the patient receives the bestmedical attention and care that is available. Hence, the second campapproach is inadequate in this respect. The focus approach alsobolsters the courage of the patient because it is just acontinuation of taking care of the ramifications of cancer that thepatient including his family has been relying on the nurses toprovide (Johnson et al., 1998, p. 301).
Forthe patient to be admitted to the hospital have a possible meaningthat the patient has a relationship with this particular hospitaltherefore following the medical treatment program exhibit a degree ofconsistency here. This practice here is not one alone practice,however it is consistent with the medical provision to any patientin any respectable medical facility to expect and receive. This willbe a part of the nursing care practice to be continually administeredto any patient with a terminal illness admitted to the hospital.
Kearney,N., & Richardson, A. (Eds.). (2006). Nursingpatients with cancer: principles and practice.Elsevier Health Sciences.Johnson,B. L., & Gross, J. (Eds.). (1998). Handbookof oncology nursing.Jones & Bartlett Learning.Verschoor,T. (Ed.). (1997). Nursingand the law.Juta and Company Ltd.Yarbro,C. H., Wujcik, D., & Gobel, B. H. (2010). CancerNursing: Principles and practice. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.