Nursing Ethics: Morphine, Ativan, and Patient Autonomy
This paper examines the ethical dilemmas arising when a primary care physician orders the administration of Ativan (lorazepam) to a patient already receiving morphine — a potentially fatal drug combination. Drawing on the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics and the International Council of Nurses Code of Ethics, the paper analyzes tensions between patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. It outlines three simultaneous courses of action a nurse should take: privately consulting the patient to ensure informed consent, collaborating with the physician to express clinical concerns, and ultimately deferring to the patient's expressed wishes if they are made competently and with full information.
- Introduction: The Ethical Conflict: Morphine-Ativan combination raises core medical ethics issues
- ANA and ICN Codes of Ethics: Competing Obligations: ANA and ICN provisions create conflicting nurse obligations
- Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent: Nurse must inform patient and protect autonomy
- Non-Maleficence and the Risk of Harm: Potential fatality triggers duty to do no harm
- Three Courses of Action for the Nurse: Three simultaneous steps to meet all ethical standards
- Conclusion: Beneficence ultimately guides the nurse's final decision
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds every ethical claim in specific provisions of recognized professional codes (ANA Code of Ethics, ICN Code of Ethics), giving the argument institutional authority rather than relying on abstract reasoning alone.
- It balances competing ethical principles — patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence — without dismissing any of them, reflecting the genuine complexity of clinical decision-making.
- The conclusion is concrete and actionable, proposing three simultaneous courses of action that translate ethical analysis directly into professional practice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: it identifies a real clinical scenario, maps it onto established ethical frameworks and professional codes, and derives practical recommendations. This approach — moving from principle to provision to action — is characteristic of professional ethics writing at the undergraduate or graduate nursing level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying the ethical conflict created by combining morphine and Ativan, then introduces the relevant ANA and ICN provisions. It works through three core bioethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence) and concludes with a three-part action plan. Each paragraph advances the argument sequentially, making the structure easy to follow despite the absence of explicit section headings in the original.
Introduction: The Ethical Conflict
Combining morphine and Ativan (lorazepam) can be deadly, making a primary care physician's (PCP) order to administer both drugs seem contradictory to medical ethics. The specific medical ethical issues raised in this case include patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. The nurse also faces professional ethical dilemmas in terms of conflicts between provisions of the American Nurses Association (ANA) Code of Ethics.
Provision 2 of the ANA Code of Ethics indicates that nurses have a primary commitment to the patient. Provision 3 calls for the professional nurse to actively advocate for and protect the "rights, health, and safety of the patient" (ANA, 2015). However, Provision 8 indicates that the nurse also "collaborates with other health professionals and the public to protect human rights, promote health diplomacy, and reduce health disparities" (ANA, 2015). This case illustrates how a nurse's primary obligation to protect the interests of patients may conflict with her role as a collaborator with other health professionals. Therefore, the nurse in this situation should confer with the PCP to discuss the reasons for proceeding with the Ativan order.
ANA and ICN Codes of Ethics: Competing Obligations
Crucial questions that must be posed include the patient's stated level of pain. If that level of pain remains suitably high after the administration of morphine — in spite of outward appearances — then the nurse may need to accept that the Ativan is necessary. The patient "appears comfortable," according to the case, but appearances can be deceiving. The patient may also be saving face by avoiding the appearance of pain in order to prevent worrying family members.
The nurse is obliged to ask the patient directly and confidentially about the level of pain being experienced and whether the patient would like additional pain relief via medication. Although input from the family member is helpful, it is not necessarily determinative, because the patient is ultimately the person to whom the nurse answers. The International Council of Nurses (2012) also suggests that nurses advocate on behalf of patients by providing as much information as needed for the patient to make informed decisions related to healthcare.
In this case, the nurse needs to inform the patient of the potential outcomes of combining morphine with Ativan. If the patient is not in a state of mind conducive to making choices, the nurse can confer with the family member and the PCP by citing evidence showing the potential harm of the drug interaction. The possibility of harm must be weighed against the ethical push toward beneficence — providing for the patient's need for pain relief. The patient's body weight and medical history may also need to be taken into account when making an evidence-based decision, rather than a reflexive response to the assumption that the patient is in pain and would benefit from the additional drug.
Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent
It is an ethical obligation of the nurse to communicate her concerns clearly to both the PCP and the family member. Section 4 of the ICN (2012) Code of Ethics, for example, advises that nurses take "appropriate action to support and guide co-workers to advance ethical conduct" (p. 4). Similarly, the nurse's primary obligation to the patient cannot be overshadowed by deference to the perceived authority of the physician. The nurse's obligation is "to safeguard individuals, families and communities when their health is endangered by a co-worker or any other person" (ICN, 2012, Section 4, p. 4).
Moreover, the patient has the right to refuse medical treatment "even if it is recommended by their physician," according to the Patients' Bill of Rights ("Patients' Bill of Rights," n.d.). The mere fact that the PCP recommended the Ativan does not necessarily mean it should be administered. If it were administered without first consulting the patient and informing her of her rights, that would constitute an egregious ethical violation of patient autonomy. Similarly, the nurse is obliged to speak with the patient privately in order to protect patient confidentiality.
Conclusion
The patient is the ultimate concern of the nurse. If the patient expressly and cogently requests additional medication due to unbearable pain, then the principle of beneficence requires that the patient receive the additional intervention. Every step taken by the nurse — private consultation, collegial communication with the physician, and deference to the patient's informed wishes — reflects the core obligations set out in both the ANA and ICN codes of ethics.
References
American Nurses Association (ANA, 2015). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.vcuhealth.org/?id=1220&sid=13
International Council of Nurses (2012). The ICN Code of Ethics for Nurses. Retrieved from
"Patients' Bill of Rights." (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aapsonline.org/patients/billrts.htm
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.