Essay on ethics
samla2222
OutlineEssayexample.docx
Scoring Element Remarks
D efinition of Situation 5 Good, Interesting______________________
When participants are needed for research or experiments regarding diseases, physicians are often contacted to provide their patients. Physicians are sometimes offered to be compensated for their cooperation via direct monetary means and often in other roundabout ways. This situation places the physician in a unique ethical position where he/she can be motivated to act in ways that can both potentially benefit and harm the patient.
Statement of Ethical Dilemma
_____________________________________________________________________________ Identification of Stakeholders & 5 Good
External Factors (1-5 points)
The major stakeholder is the patient who will bear the consequences of the decision that is made by their physician in this case. The entity that is conducting the research is also a stakeholder, as they may have potential gains from the success of the research.
Other stakeholders include: the physician, who will potentially have to answer to the patient and patient’s family if there are any negative side effects(including death) from the research.
One of the greatest external factors involved is the money or other compensation involved. There is a possibility that the physician becomes motivated by the compensation and not the beneficence for the patient.
Another possible external factor is the motive of the entity that is conducting the research. There are many questions consider: “What will the patients benefit from the research? What will the company benefit from the research? Will the patient’s welfare be compromised by the company’s motives?”
One of the other external factors could be the motive of the physician. This is of concern if the physician’s primary motive for recommending a patient is the compensation involved.
C hoice of Final Decision & 5 Good
Ethical Values (1-5 points)
Considering the above stakeholders and external factors, it is my final decision to oppose compensation to physicians for recommending their patients to entities for research purposes.
There is a potential for the physician to be directly or indirectly motivated by the compensation instead of what should be their primary concern: the welfare of their patient. This may lead for the physician violating the ethical value of beneficence.
This decision will allow the physician to maintain the ethical value of non-maleficence, as they will not be putting the patient in a position where they have the potential of being in harm’s way.
______________________________________________________________________________ E xplanation/Defense of Decision & 5 Very Good
Response to Criticism (1-5 points)
In defense of this decision to oppose physician compensation, non-maleficence and beneficence should be the primary ethical values involved. At this time, there is a limited number of apparent positive outcomes compared to the greater potential risks associated with providing compensation to physicians for recommending their patients to entities for research purposes.
The relationship between the physician and the compensating entity can be considered a “conflict of interest”. This may lead to a slippery slope: The physician may begin to recommend patients without extensive evaluation of the ethical value of non-maleficence, he/she could arguably be: “blinded by the money”.
It is also important to note that there is also a potential that the dignity of the patient may be undermined, especially if external factors lead to outcomes that were undesired by the researchers. Will the patient be treated as “just another number/failure on the road to successes”, or will the research be conducted with the patient’s human dignity as the priority? Another important situation that has a strong correlation to this issue is: compensation by pharmaceutical companies to physicians for written/filled prescriptions by patients, which is another conflict of interest that is strongly opposed by many.
One may criticize this decision, from the utilitarianism standpoint, stating that this decision may impede scientific research, eradication of diseases, and the potential for discovery. It may also be argued that medicine and research are co-dependent, and that one cannot thrive without the other.
The primary response to this criticism is that there are many ways to promote research that do not involve this conflict of interest, such as informative sessions with physicians(without compensation), online/printed literature, and various forms of media advertisements(TV, billboards, etc. Since compensation can be considered an extrinsic motivator, it has a large potential for abuse by both the physician and the research entity, which could be to the detriment of the patient.
Furthermore, in this case, errors in research may result in permanent alterations in the patient’s quality of life, and potentially even death. This result may unintentionally lead to more harm than good, the opposite of non-Maleficence. It should also be noted that if an adverse situation were to arise, the patient may place the blame on the physician, alleging that the physician was not motivated by the beneficence of the patient.
Although compensation to physicians for recommending their patients to entities for research purposes may have a small potential for good, the other negative consequences that may arise indicate that the ethical decision to oppose this conflict of interest relationship is the better option.
Writing Mechanics (1-5 points)
TOTAL SCORE: 20
