When it comes to ethical decision-making, there is no one “right” answer. Rather, ethical decision-making requires careful consideration of the facts of the situation and the potential consequences of various actions.
This case study presents a hypothetical situation in which an individual must make an ethical decision. Read through the scenario and then answer the questions that follow.
You are a marketing executive for a large corporation. Your boss has just given you a new assignment: to develop a marketing campaign for a new product that your company is about to launch. The product is a new type of insecticide that is designed to kill pests quickly and efficiently. After doing some research on the product, you have some concerns about its safety.
Ethics are a critical component of an individual’s personal and professional life, since ethics assist people in determining whether their actions are correct or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, and fair or unfair (Fremen, 2009). In every profession, strong workplace ethics and interpersonal ethics are required. The case study regarding Dr. William’s office assistant Jerry McCall is one such example.
The caller, claiming to be from the state medical board, asked a lot of questions about Dr. William’s credentials and practice. Jerry answered all the questions truthfully. The next day, Jerry was called into Dr. William’s office and was fired.
Dr. William’s felt that Jerry had violated his trust by sharing information about his practice with someone outside of the office, without first getting his permission. In this case, did Jerry act ethically? How should he have handled the situation? What are some possible solutions to this problem?
There are many different ethical theories that can be applied to this case study in order to determine whether or not Jerry acted ethically. One theory is deontology, which is the belief that morality is a matter of duty, and that one’s actions should be based on what is right or wrong, regardless of the consequences (Fremen, 2009). According to deontology, Jerry did not act ethically when he shared information about Dr. William’s practice with the caller from the state medical board, because he violated Dr. William’s trust.
Another ethical theory that can be applied to this case is utilitarianism, which is the belief that an action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people (Fremen, 2009). Based on utilitarianism, Jerry did act ethically when he shared information about Dr. William’s practice, because his actions resulted in the caller from the state medical board getting the information they needed.
There are a few different ways that Jerry could have handled the situation differently. First, he could have asked Dr. William’s if it was okay to share the information with the caller before doing so. Second, he could have told the caller that he was not authorized to share any information about Dr. William’s practice without his permission, and then transferred them to Dr. William’s office. Third, he could have taken a message for Dr. William’s and told the caller that he would return their call after speaking with him.
Some possible solutions to this problem are as follows: Jerry could apologize to Dr. William’s for sharing the information without his permission, and then make sure to get his permission before sharing any information in the future. Or, Dr. William’s could hold a meeting with all of his employees to go over what information can and cannot be shared with people outside of the office. Finally, Jerry and Dr. William’s could sit down and talk about what happened, and come up with a solution that works for both of them.
A long-term patient phoned in a last-minute refill for an antidepressant. The patient informed Jerry that he is a close friend of Dr. Williams. Jerry has some LPN and medical assistant training, but no accreditation in either field. There was no one else available to fill the prescription, according to the patient. This case study will look at whether or not Jerry is authorized to make ethical and legal judgments while dealing with callers’ demands for medication and making ethical and legal decisions.
Jerry is not a licensed professional, so he cannot make the decision to refill the prescription. He does not have the authority to do so. The patient is asking him to break the law. Even if the patient is a close friend of Dr. Williams, Jerry cannot put himself at risk by calling in the refill. It is not worth losing his job or getting in trouble with the law.
The best thing for Jerry to do would be to tell the patient that he is not able to help him and to hang up the phone. He should then report the call to his supervisor. If Jerry does decide to help the patient, he could be opening himself up to legal and ethical problems down the road.
To request medication refills for patients, a healthcare expert must have appropriate educational and professional qualifications (Fremen, 2009). Even though Jerry has an LPN and medical assistant certificate, he does not have the necessary training to work in either field. If jerry had his credential, it would still not guarantee that he has the necessary skills to authorize prescription orders for individuals. Jerry’s medical education is insufficient to allow him to do so.
Jerry’s boss finds out that he has been ordering medication refills for patients without the proper qualifications and certifications. His boss is angry and confrontational with Jerry. Jerry’s boss tells him that he could lose his job if he does not get the proper certification. Jerry is worried and decides to take a leave of absence from work to get the proper certification.
Jerry is now certified to order prescription medication refills for patients. He returns to work and continues ordering medication refills for patients. However, his boss is still not happy with him and tells him that he needs to be more careful in the future.
Calling in prescriptions for patients might expose jerry to a slew of legal difficulties. He must get the ok from his doctor to call in any patient prescriptions. Would it make a difference if the drugs were for controlling blood pressure, which the patient badly required on a daily basis? Why or why not? This is an intricate question.
In some ways, it would make a difference if the medication were for something critical like high blood pressure, because then Jerry could argue that he was acting in the best interests of the patient. However, it could also be argued that Jerry should have known that he needed permission from the physician in order to call in prescriptions, and so even if the medication was for something critical, Jerry still acted negligently.
