Scenario I
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) was implemented to ensure that parties could find a resolution to a conflict without having to proceed with court hearings. The components of the process are “mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation, and collaborative law” (“What is ADR?,” n.d.). These approaches have several benefits because they allow resolving issues faster when compared to traditional court proceedings; however, this results in several limitations. In the case scenario, the arbitration is chosen by the facility as an approach for dealing with conflicts, which leads to adverse outcomes for the patients trying to prove negligence.
The case of Alana Mendez presents several consideration aspects, firstly, the clause that requires parties to submit prospective disputes for arbitration. The primary difference with a standard procedure is that both Mendez and Bay Pines Rehabilitation Center will have to work with a third party to resolve the problem. This factor may impose several difficulties for proving the negligence because the process of submitting evidence is limited and may be restricted by the arbiter. Additionally, in case of an adverse decision, Mendez will be unable to appeal the decision.
Additionally, it should be noted that Mendez’s next-of-kin signed the contract. According to DeMartino et al. (2017) “there is a broad ethical consensus that other persons may make life-and-death decisions on behalf of patients who lack decisional capacity” (p. 1478). It is possible that, due to Alzheimer’s syndrome, Mendez will not be able to appeal the daughter’s decision because it is a severe condition. In many states, certain legislations regulate the decision-making process of patients with limited mental capacity, and in some cases, it is possible to dispute their resolution. This would require an examination of law in a particular state.
From an ethical perspective, ensuring that patients sign the contract that involves an arbitration agreement is not fair because it limits the ability to prove injuries or other problems that facilities’ negligence caused. A proper court hearing would allow more time for examining the issue and implementing an appropriate resolution. Overall, it is recommended to study appropriate laws regarding the rights of next of kin in the state to determine whether the daughter’s decision can be appealed. Even if the decision cannot be canceled Mendez has a change of receiving compensation for Bay Pines Rehabilitation Center’s failure to deliver quality care through arbitration if proper evidence is collected.
Scenario II
The case scenario of Generic Pharma and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) presents an ethical and legal issue due to possible bias that may affect the decision of Joe Spencer. Firstly, the FDA together with the US Office of Government Ethics created many barriers and regulations that aimed at illuminating the risk of personal relationships affecting the decision making the process of officials.
The standard of ethical conduct states that in cases similar to that of Generic Pharma the FDA employee in question should inform his agency and receive authorization for proceeding with the activity (United States Office of Government Ethics., 2017). The government official can contact his supervisor or ethics professional to consult on the matter and determine whether it can impair his decision regarding Generic Pharma.
The cases described by this code of ethics focus on professional relationships and previous employment. However, the agency emphasizes that in situations where a household member or an employee has a connection to an organization that will be affected by the employees’ decision, the official should contact the agency (United States Office of Government Ethics, 2017). Generic Pharma would profit mainly from the approval of their new drug, which is a second factor that should be considered.
The component implies that Spenser has to notify his organization and seek permission to proceed with the case due to his connection with Smith, who would profit from the approval. Therefore, it is advised that Smith contacts the official regarding the matter and clarifies whether the agency is aware of their connection. An official may be disqualified by filing a report that explains the reasoning behind the decision.
Finally, a particular example that can illustrate a similar court case against FDA. A court proceeding of Lorillard v. FDA presents an equivalent issue of the approval process subjected to bias (“FDA appeals,” 2017). In it, three FDA committee employees should have been disqualified due to their connection with other court cases regarding Tabaco use, which may result in their biased attitude towards the matter. Additionally, the decision cited the Federal Advisory Committee Act and failure of FDA to comply with its requirements.
Overall, in the case of Generic Pharma, both legal and ethical barriers exist. While the matter of approval may be postponed due to the following actions, it will ensure that Generic Pharma avoids court proceedings because of a conflict of interest. Therefore, Smith should ensure that her company will not be subjected to further investigations due to her previous connection with Spencer. She should be advised to contact Spencer and provide that the FDA is aware of the matter to receive authorization.
References
DeMartino, E. S., Dudzinski, D. M., Doyle, C. K., Sperry, B. P., Gregory, S. E., Siegler, M., … Kramer, D. B. (2017). Who decides when a patient can’t? Statutes on alternate decision makers. The New England Journal of Medicine, 376(15), 1478-1482.
FDA appeals court ruling on TPSAC conflict of interest. (2017). Web.
United States Office of Government Ethics. (2017). Standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch. Web.
What is ADR? (n.d.). Web.