The IHP 420 Module 1 post here, complete at about 350 words, distinguishes the legal and ethical questions in a staff influenza vaccine requirement, applies the four principles, cites a health system's results and ends with a question. Searches like "ihp 420 module 1 assignment", "ihp420 module 1 ethics and law discussion" and "ihp 420 module 1 example" land here.
The IHP 420 Module 1 example, in full
Module One Discussion: Ethical and Legal Questions in Health Care
Re: May we require it, and should we?
At the composite 300-bed hospital where I work in human resources, leadership has proposed making annual influenza vaccination a condition of employment for all staff. The debate kept mixing two questions: may we, and should we? The first is legal; the second is ethical.
The legal answer is largely yes. Private employers generally may require vaccination as a condition of employment, but federal law requires reasonable accommodation for employees with a medical contraindication and for sincerely held religious beliefs unless accommodation would cause undue hardship. Federal authority to require vaccination of health care staff was also upheld when the Supreme Court allowed the federal COVID-19 vaccine requirement for Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities to take effect (Biden v. Missouri, 2022).
The ethical answer takes more work. Using the four principles (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019): respect for autonomy weighs against a requirement, because it overrides an adult's choice about their own body. Nonmaleficence weighs strongly in favor, because unvaccinated staff can transmit influenza to frail patients who did not choose the risk. Beneficence supports protecting patients and coworkers. Justice asks whether the burden falls fairly, which supports allowing genuine exemptions and making vaccination free and available on every shift.
Evidence helps settle how much autonomy is actually overridden. When a large Midwestern health system with about 26,000 employees made vaccination a condition of employment with medical and religious exemptions, 98.4 percent were vaccinated, 1.5 percent received exemptions and only eight employees were neither vaccinated nor exempted (Babcock et al., 2010). The requirement changed behavior for many while dismissing very few, which is ethically different from forcing a treatment on an unwilling patient. I conclude the hospital may and should adopt the requirement, with exemptions reviewed by occupational health rather than supervisors, a clear appeal process and a surgical mask option for anyone exempted during flu season. My question for the group: can you name a case in your workplace where something was legal but you believed it was not ethical?
References
Babcock, H. M., Gemeinhart, N., Jones, M., Dunagan, W. C., & Woeltje, K. F. (2010). Mandatory influenza vaccination of health care workers: Translating policy to practice. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 50(4), 459-464. https://doi.org/10.1086/650752
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. 87 (2022).
How this IHP 420 Module 1 example is structured
The post answers two questions in order. It first states the practical question and why it has two parts. The legal answer comes next, followed by the ethical analysis principle by principle. Evidence from a health system that adopted a requirement tests the ethical claims against results. The closing paragraph explains why the two answers can differ and asks classmates for an example where they did.
Get IHP 420 Module 1 written to your instructions
Send your IHP 420 Module 1 discussion prompt and rubric. A post that separates the ethical and legal questions in your example comes back within 24 to 48 hours, and the first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
IHP 420 Module 1 questions, answered
What is IHP 420 Module 1 about?
Courses on health care law and ethics usually begin with the four principles of biomedical ethics and with the difference between an ethical question, what ought to be done, and a legal one, what is allowed or required. The first discussion often asks for an example where the two part ways.
What are the four principles of biomedical ethics?
Respect for autonomy, honoring people's right to make their own informed choices; beneficence, acting for others' benefit; nonmaleficence, avoiding harm; and justice, distributing benefits and burdens fairly. They are widely used to structure analysis of ethical questions in health care.
Can something be legal but unethical?
Yes. Law sets minimum enforceable standards, while ethics asks what is right. An action can be legal but ethically questionable, such as withholding information that is not legally required, and in some cases an ethically defensible action may conflict with a law.