Smith Case Study Discussion

The Smith case study presents an interesting ethical dilemma. Before making a decision regarding the merit of the demand for returning the gift, it is important to examine the components and time scale of the fraudulent activity.

Firstly, Smith was approached for the gift before either employees, stockholders, or the medical center was aware of his wrongdoing in acquiring the money. If the hypothetical approach is taken, the center would certainly not have asked for or accepted the money had its fraudulent means of acquisition been known. It was assumed that Smith had acquired the money by legal means, and it was therefore accepted.

Secondly, at the time of Smith's gift, all employees and stockholders still had their stocks and salaries in place. The medical center had no reason for refusing the gift, and other stakeholders had no reason to doubt the ethical management of Big Business company. Just as the investment yields and salaries of the stakeholders were applied to acquire goods or make further investments, the medical center also used the gift to acquire a variety of improvements, goods, and research for the well-being of the community.

Thirdly, it must also be kept in mind that the gift was not applied in an unethical manner. The hospital used it for purposes as publicly claimed. Both the medical center and the community it serves benefited from the various applications of the gift.

For these reasons, I believe that it is unreasonable for stakeholders to demand a return of a gift given at a time when their own funding was still in place. The medical center is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Now being aware of the fraudulent activity, however, they can publicly distance themselves from Smith by removing his name from the pediatric unit named after him. I do not believe that the stakeholders have any ethical right to demand a return of the gift from the medical center, as the center itself is as innocent of the charges as the stakeholders.