This assignment asks you to examine a current ethical controversy case study. The paper is informal, but should be in APA style, and does not need an abstract or cover page. With a minimum of two pages and a maximum of four pages A reference page is needed. In-text citations should be in APA format. Papers will be graded on a 0 to 25-point scale. One hypothetical case study involves Jim a 54, year old patient who has recently diagnose with hypertension and his Creatinine and BUN laboratory results are elevated, if left untreated, will result in kidney failure. The patient refuses to take the medication because he said it will affect his sex life The NP must work with the patient to respect the fact that he doesn’t want the medication (autonomy), and needs to find a solution that would prevent him from going into kidney failure and other complications, which is in his best interest (beneficence). Although medications are the best choice, forcing the patient to accept the medication will result in probably patient leaving the care (non-maleficence). Finally, the NP needs to consider the impact that the patient’s choices might have on others if he starts to go into preventable kidney failure, he’ll need dialysis, which affects other people who need the same treatment (justice). So before making the final decision the NP must consider all four principles of health care ethics, which will help the NP make the choice that will have the best possible benefits for both the patient and society.


Ethical controversies often arise in healthcare settings, as healthcare professionals are often faced with difficult decisions that involve balancing the autonomy and best interests of the patient. In this case study, we will examine the dilemma faced by a nurse practitioner (NP) in managing a patient who refuses to take medication for his hypertension due to concerns about its impact on his sex life. The NP must navigate the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice in order to find a solution that is in the best interest of the patient and society.


Autonomy is a fundamental principle in healthcare ethics that emphasizes the right of individuals to make decisions about their own health and medical care. In this case, the patient, Jim, has expressed his refusal to take medication for his hypertension due to concerns about its impact on his sex life. As a nurse practitioner, it is crucial to respect Jim’s autonomy and his right to make decisions about his own body. The NP should engage in a meaningful dialogue with Jim to understand his concerns and explore alternative options that may address his medical needs while respecting his autonomy.


Beneficence is the principle that requires healthcare professionals to act in the best interest of the patient and to promote their well-being. In this case, the elevated Creatinine and BUN laboratory results indicate that Jim’s hypertension, if left untreated, may lead to kidney failure. It is important for the NP to educate Jim about the potential consequences of not treating his hypertension and the benefits of medication in preventing kidney failure. The NP should provide Jim with accurate information and evidence-based recommendations to help him understand that taking medication is in his best interest in terms of preventing complications and maintaining his overall health.


Non-maleficence is the principle that prohibits healthcare professionals from causing harm to their patients. Although medications are the recommended course of treatment for hypertension, forcing Jim to accept medication against his will would be an infringement on his autonomy and potentially result in him leaving the care. However, the NP must also consider the potential harm that may arise if Jim’s hypertension is left untreated and progresses to kidney failure. The NP should explore alternative strategies and interventions that may address Jim’s concerns about medication while still ensuring that his medical needs are being met and potential harm is minimized.


Justice is the principle that emphasizes fairness and equal treatment in healthcare. The NP must consider the impact that Jim’s choices may have on others, particularly if his condition progresses to kidney failure and requires dialysis. Dialysis is a limited resource, and if Jim’s preventable kidney failure results in him needing dialysis, it may impact other individuals who require the same treatment. The NP should consider the potential consequences of Jim’s choices on the allocation of resources and strive to make a decision that is fair and just, taking into account the needs and well-being of not only Jim but also other patients who may require dialysis.


In this case study, the NP is faced with the ethical dilemma of managing a patient who refuses medication for hypertension due to concerns about its impact on his sex life. By considering the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, the NP can navigate this ethical controversy and find a solution that is in the best interest of the patient and society. Through open and honest communication, education, and exploration of alternative options, the NP can work collaboratively with the patient to develop a treatment plan that addresses Jim’s concerns while still ensuring the prevention of complications and maintenance of his overall health. Making an ethically sound decision in this case requires balancing the autonomy of the patient with the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, ultimately promoting the well-being of both the individual and the broader healthcare community.