. Case Studies:
-What case are you examining?
Case #1
-What principles are relevant to the case?
The principles of nonmalfesance, beneficence, and justice are relevant.
-Clearly explain how they apply to the moral features of the case.
Because Dr. M.’s colleagues failed to acknowledge her contributions to the research, they did do
harm in a sense; thus, the concept of nonmalfesance was breached. Dr. M. spearheaded the
research but after she left the institution, the colleagues published it with no mention of her.
Beneficence is doing good; it is a positive principle. By ignoring Dr. M.’s hard work and dedication
to the research, the colleagues did not show beneficence. Moreover, justice implies the
distribution of resources. If authorship and acknowledgement are resources, then the
resources were certainly not equally distributed.
-What is the relevant medical information?
The relevant information (though in this case not medical) involves the fact that Dr. M left her
home institution; yet, her colleagues “published her data as their own” (Waldron, 2022, p. 10).
Neither her contributions nor her authorship were recognized. According to the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), one of the tenets of authorship involves a
significant contribution to research (Waldron, 2022).
While authorship for Dr. M. likely does not meet the three precepts set forth in the ICMJE since
she may not have written the manuscript and we can assume she did not approve the final
version of it since the left the institution, one can argue that her contribution should have been
cited.
-Cite a minimum of four Scripture references that provide an indication of overarching principles?
If not authorship, then a basic nod to her contribution is not only a professional courtesy but has
Biblical roots as well. According to Scripture, “The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark12:31, ESV). This quote
embodies the ethical principles of nonmalfesance, beneficence, and justice.
Further, in Luke 10:25-37, a person asks Jesus what constitutes his neighbor and Jesus replies
with the story of the Good Samaritan, instructing us, “You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your
neighbor as yourself” (ESV). Again, the parable is an exemplar of nonmalfesance, beneficence,
and justice. It shows that Christian love is not context dependent. We are to love our fellow man
and to show respect regardless of other circumstances. While the scenario did not indicate any ill
will toward Dr. M., there are petty people who might intentionally not acknowledge her due to a
personal grievance, which violates God’s law.
In Mark 12:31, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than
these” (ESV). The colleagues are in breach of this commandment. By refusing to acknowledge the
good doctor’s research contributions, ideas, and work, they violate this sacred commandment as
well as the three aforementioned ethical principles.
Romans 15:2 tells us, “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up” (ESV). Not
only are the colleagues guilty of not building Dr. M. up, but they are also effectively tearing her
down with their blatant lack of acknowledgment of her contributions to the research.
-What resolution do you suggest?
The authors should amend the research to add Dr. M as a contributor. While she might not meet
authorship standards, then her contributions should be acknowledged since she “researched and
established preliminary data” (Waldron, 2022, p. 10). The problem should be rectified with
proper accreditation of the collaborative work.
-What case are you examining?
Case #2
-What principles are relevant to the case?
Beneficence and justice are relevant bioethical principles in this scenario.
-Clearly explain how they apply to the moral features of the case.
According to Waldron (20220, “it is even considered a variety of plagiarism to take the same
original work and publish it in two different journals” (p. 8).
-What is the relevant medical information?
Dr. J is a microbiologist and Dr. Z. is a biochemist; they collaborated on research. Dr. J. published
the results with both names in one journal, his got top billing. Dr. Z. published in a separate
biochemical journal, but he switched the name order.
-Cite a minimum of four Scripture references that provide an indication of overarching principles?
Dr. Z. is guilty of a kind of plagiarism. Not only did he switch the order of authorship, but he
published it again in a different journal. This displays neither beneficence nor justice. “Love does
no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10, ESV).
Dr. Z. appears to be guilty of egoism. Philippians 2:3 tells us, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or
conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (ESV).
Dr. Z. has put himself before his colleague. “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one
another showing honor” (Romans 12:10, ESV). Switching the authorship order and then
publishing the results in a different journal lacks veracity and honor.
Perhaps Dr. Z. has not considered the implications of his actions toward his colleague; his
actions are undoubtedly injurious and self-serving. “If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has
done it shall be done to him” (Leviticus 24:19, ESV).
-What resolution do you suggest?
Actions have consequences and Dr. Z. should face punitive measures for his breach of trust and
his transgressions of the said bioethical principles. The article should be omitted from the second
journal with a letter from the editors. He should also face some work-related consequences, and
perhaps a moratorium on publication for a set amount of time.
-What case are you examining?
Case # 3
-What principles are relevant to the case?
Beneficence and justice are the bioethical principles that are relevant to this case.
-Clearly explain how they apply to the moral features of the case.
The moral features of the case are two-fold. First, Dr. N. is guilty of breaching IRB protocols.
Second, Dr. N. has retaliated against the whistleblower and has abused his position of trust and
authority.
-What is the relevant medical information?
Dr. N. has violated IRB protocol and is reported to the appropriate people by an undergraduate
student. Dr. N. fails the student despite solid academic performance.
-Cite a minimum of four Scripture references that provide an indication of overarching principles?
Ironically, Dr. N. feels he has been wronged so he retaliates against the student. Scripture warns
us, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you
shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:18, ESV).
Likely feeling angry that an underling reported him, Scripture reminds us, “Good sense makes
one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense” (Proverbs 19:11, ESV).
Lying is one of the gravest sins since it tends to have a snowball effect. Dr. N. likely committed
some sort of deceit with his research and then he retaliates with another lie—by failing an
academically solid student in retaliation. We are told in Psalm 101:7, “No one who practices
deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes” (ESV).
Indeed, Scripture admonishes, “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit”
(Psalm 34:13, ESV).
-What resolution do you suggest?
Dr. N. should be fired from his academic position. The core components of a university professor
are teaching and research. Clearly, he cannot be trusted with either. I find the failing of a student
particularly distasteful. Retaliation of that kind has no place for a person in a position of authority.
II. Questions:
