Medical Case Study
A woman comes to the emergency room with severe stomach pain and finds out that she needs surgery. She does not have medical insurance or the required sum of money to pay for it herself. If she does not have emergency surgery, she may die. The doctor faces an ethical dilemma of either leaving the patient without surgery or finding a way to help her.
There are several ways for a doctor to move forward with this case. They can either transfer the patient to a public health care facility that can perform the surgery for free or do it at the hospital as an emergency procedure. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) obliges hospitals to provide treatment to patients with emergency medical conditions until this condition is resolved or stabilized (“EMTALA fact sheet,” n.d.). If I were the doctor, I would probably try to transfer the patient to a public clinic that will agree to accept her, and, if it fails, take action to perform the surgery at the hospital.
It is unethical for the doctor and hospital to leave the patient without surgery even if she could not afford to pay for it. According to the principle of beneficence, health care professionals need to do what is good and right for the patient, and the principle of justice implies that care should be provided to all groups of patients (American College of Emergency Physicians, 2017). The ethical dilemma that the doctor faces, in this case, is centered around the conflict between the principle of beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence, and those of accountability and autonomy. Accountability means that doctors should be accountable for their actions and accept the consequences of their decisions. Autonomy means that a patient has the right to make medical decisions themselves (American College of Emergency Physicians, 2017). Therefore, the doctor should not insist on the patient undergoing surgery and take into consideration their financial circumstances, and should not take responsibility for them that they could not bear.
Business Case Study
John becomes the manager of a plastics manufacturing plant in New Mexico that produces heavy emissions and cannot afford to install smokestacks due to budget constraints. In order to avoid the fine, he contemplates moving the plant across the border into Mexico, but it will not solve the problem completely. John wants to be able to comply with the EPA guidelines and standards but save the company’s money and people’s jobs.
It is unethical for the plant to continue to operate without fixing the problem because it violates the principles of honesty and sustainability. The latter refers to businesses meeting the present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to address their necessities (Grant, 2020). Heavy emissions produced by the plant negatively affect the environment and human health. Furthermore, the plant performs many heavy emissions operations at night in order to deceive the EPA, which violates the principle of honesty.
Moving the company across the border is not a viable decision because it does not solve the problem in an ethical manner. The plant will still continue to produce heavy emissions and damage the environment, many workers will lose their jobs, and the company will bear additional relocation costs. The best way to address the issue is to persuade the company’s top management to allocate money from the budget to install smokestacks regardless of the financial losses. It will allow the company to avoid the fine and other negative consequences, such as reputational losses, without violating ethical principles.
References
American College of Emergency Physicians. (2017). Code of ethics for emergency physicians.Annals of Emergency Medicine, 70(1), e7–e15. Web.
EMTALA fact sheet. (n.d.). American College of Emergency Physicians. Web.
Grant, M. (2020). Sustainability.Investopedia. Web.