Blog 2: Paradise Hills Dilemma

As I read the case about the situation at Paradise Hills, I, too, found myself unsure of the "right" thing to do. Obviously, patients have the right to know what is going on with their treatment. On the other hand, however, if learning about a mishap like this could be detrimental to their health, maybe it should be withheld. The problem that I found to be the most concerning was the reasons some of the hospital staff gave as to why they should withhold the information regarding the radiation overdose. If the doctors made the decisions solely on the basis of protecting their patients, both physically and emotionally, this could be justified choice. This also assumes that the patients really would be harmed by learning of the accident, the way the doctors have proposed. Unfortunately, the doctors and administrators were looking out for more than just their patients; they were looking out for the reputation of the hospital and the potential loss in revenue if this were to get out. They even went as far as to joke about the potential for litigation if the patients found out.

This brings up an interesting case: supposing the decision had been made solely to protect the patients, would it still have been unethical to withhold the information? This is another question I hope to be able to answer once this class is complete. It seems to me that the hospital should have reported the misstep immediately, and been ready to handle whatever happens in response. As a physician, you are ultimately responsible for the health of the patient, and if they are unaware that they were put at risk in your care, they can’t do anything to potentially correct it. As we’ve seen in the past, high exposure to radiation can cause problems well into the future. If the patients never knew about what happened, what would they do when/if these medical issues did arise? This case is a good example of both good and bad intentions, where the bad intentions unfortunately outweighed the good.

Blog 1: Introduction

As I am an MBA candidate, with little background in healthcare administration, I believed that the theories and issues presented by the required textbooks would not relate to the business environment at all. The healthcare industry is very unique in the types of ethical dilemmas that can arise, and for this reason I thought there would be many stark differences in applicable theories. However, as I began reading The Tracks We Leave, I quickly realized that everything presented in the introduction was universally applicable, not only valid in the healthcare industry. The ten principles offered by John Worthley undoubtedly apply to all aspects of the business world, from virtues and benefits to justice and liberty. In all cases in the introduction, one could easily swap the word “patient” for “business client” and find themselves in a better position to handle ethical situations and dilemmas.

One thing that stood out to me while reading through the ethical decision-making frameworks was the ambiguity of the terms used. It is difficult to determine what “the greater good” means, and to whom is it greater? Determining “legitimate moral rights” is another situation that can be difficult to fully integrate into business decisions. What determines the legitimacy of a moral right, and who is the one to make that decision? These are questions that I anticipate will be answered over the course of the summer semester. These answers will determine the best applications of the theories in both the healthcare industry and the business environment.