In this paper, the Alabama Department of Public Health’s policy on the Zika virus, as well as the ethical approach in business, will be discussed.
Alabama Department of Public Health’s Policy
As the first Zika virus case was confirmed in Alabama at the beginning of 2016, the Alabama Department of Public Health launched a campaign to educate and prevent the spread of the disease among Alabama citizens. Moreover, 345 submissions were received by the Alabama Department of Public Health from the citizens that wanted to be tested; 39 of these tests demonstrated positive result (Alabama Department of Public Health, 2016).
The ADPH also issued an advisory for pregnant women, as well as travelers, and provided webcasts and videos about the Zika virus for citizens of the state. The policymaking continued as the disease reached Alabama and first residents were confirmed with the virus. Alabama physicians were asked to contact the ADPH if any of their patients demonstrated symptoms of the disease.
All suspected cases were asked to be reported to Infectious Diseases & Outbreaks via the ADHP website. Specific submission forms were provided for residents who wanted to be tested for Zika or chikungunya and dengue viruses. Specimens for the tests could be dropped off at local departments and were later delivered to BCL.
The ADHP and Senior Services worked together on the education of residents about the Zika virus; coloring books that contained information about the virus were distributed to pre-kindergarten students, as well as more than 8.000 citizens of the state.
Information for clinicians was provided via the website in the form of PDF files. As of today, the ADHP accepts proposals from the residents on mosquito surveillance.
Sarah’s Case
Business ethics in large enterprises do not forbid recommendations from employees, even if these recommendations concern their friends or family. Thus, Sarah will not break any rules if she decides to interview Jane. However, she should hand her written recommendation to the director of the company so that the interview process is transparent. It would be unethical if Sarah did not mention that Jane is her friend and decided to conduct the interview herself, without any mentions about their relationships.
As the company does not provide money to fund additional training for the other two applicants, and Jane is qualified for the position, it seems logical to interview Jane for the job. However, if it is possible, the director of the company should be present at the interview to ensure that Sara does not supervise her friend or interviews her incorrectly.
The most ethical approach here would be to conduct an interview with all three applicants and choose one of them depending on the results of the interview. Sarah’s choice cannot be entirely ethical as it is limited by the budget of the company. The other two applicants can be more suitable for the position but only after specific training. However, it is impossible to train at least one of them due to the financial issues of the company. If the main aim of the company is to find a qualified employee for the position, it is reasonable to interview Jane but at the highest level of transparency.
The ethical approach can be both the best and the worst one depending on the context. However, the advantage of the ethical approach is that it tries to avoid conflict of interests and present all parties with equal opportunities or choices. Nevertheless, it also heavily depends on the situation.
Reference
Alabama Department of Public Health. (2016). Zika virus. Web.