Ethical Dilemma I Have Faced in Business

ETHNICAL DILEMMA I HAVE FOUND IN Business violation of professional ethics occurred when a colleague pretended to be me when she telephonically ordered narcotics. Even though my employer and the colleague in question both felt that the action was intended to help lighten my workload, I felt that my personal status as a registered nurse was being compromised.

Although the order was ultimately sanctioned by my employer, the initial dishonest order still reflected on my license. The outcome of the incident was that everyone concerned was now more aware of the influence of encroaching ethical boundaries.

OPTIONS

To not refill the prescription and to resign from my position.

Does the action, as far as possible, maximize social benefits and minimize social injuries?

It is my belief that by not refilling the prescription and resigning from my position I would contribute to the maximization of social benefits in that the order placed under false pretence would be null and void, which in turn minimizes social injuries such as having my nursing license revoked.

Q2. Is the action consistent with the moral rights of those whom it will affect?

The principled decision not to refill the prescription is, I believe, consistent with my moral right to protect the professional integrity of my profession. However, resigning from my position may be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

Q3. Will the action lead to a just distribution of benefits and burdens?

I don't believe the individual's concerned will be motivated to re-assess their role in the circumstances leading to my action. The negative consequences of my actions far outweigh the benefits because not only will the fledgling practice lose a competent employee but also as a co-operative team member working toward a common goal.

Q4. Does the action exhibit appropriate care for the well-being of those who are closely related to or dependent on oneself?

The action does not engender care for those closely related or dependent on oneself. Rather, I am firstly concerned with protecting my reputation as a professional and therefore oppose the unethical behavior displayed by my colleague.

Refill the prescription under doctor's authority.

Q1. Does the action, as far as possible, maximize social benefits and minimize social injuries?

This action allows me to safeguard my own position. The onus is therefore on the doctor should there be any repercussion. However, it is not necessarily a positive with regard my career as I am shifting my responsibilities away from myself which may jeopardize my future.

Q2. Is the action consistent with the moral rights of those whom it will affect?

Under the circumstances, the action is acceptable because the doctor is obliged by his profession to uphold a high level of ethical practices. His decision is viewed as responsible and also instills trust in those he deals with.

Q3. Will the action lead to a just distribution of benefits and burdens?

I believe that the action is justified because the doctor engenders confidence between the distributor and patient.

Q4. Does the action exhibit appropriate care for the well-being of those who are closely related to or dependent on oneself?

It is probably a wise decision under the circumstances because not only is the prescription refilled, but the colleague that made the error of acting on my behalf is given a fair chance to correct her mistake.

Confront the office manager and tell her that I would not be able to call in the prescription for her (which is what I wish I would have done).

Q1. Does the action, as far as possible, maximize social benefits and minimize social injuries?

This assertive action obliges the office manager to reflect on her actions and be responsible to rectify the matter. My action maximizes social benefits in that the individuals involved are reminded of their relevant duties and the importance of respecting each others basic rights. Social injuries may occur if the matter is unresolved, which may jeopardize the previous collaborative working order in the practice.

Q2. Is the action consistent with the moral rights of those whom it will affect?

The interaction between employer and staff should at all times consider the net social benefits and costs consequent to their actions. By confronting the office manager I demonstrated my right not to be a co-conspirator to her unethical action.

Q3. Will the action lead to a just distribution of benefits and burdens?

The action may lead to either. On the one hand, the office manager may feel that she is being unfairly reproached since her intentions were merely to help me with my workload; which will mean that the action could be a burden and inhibit cooperation within the practice. On the other hand, the action may be beneficial in that a very important lesson has been learn that the basic rights of the individuals involved are to be considered and respected in relation with one's agreements and special duties.

Q4. Does the action exhibit appropriate care for the well-being of those who are closely related to or dependent on oneself?

I am confident that by confronting the office manager and giving her the opportunity to rectify the matter, I am exhibiting appropriate care for my personal well-being, which in turn affects those closely related or dependent on me. My action demonstrates self-discipline and the right to be respected as a person who upholds ethical beliefs, but also that I am not easily intimidated by a senior colleague.

4. To call an informal meeting with Dr. T and the two staff members to address the probable adverse affects of the unethical action.

Q1. Does the action, as far as possible, maximize social benefits and minimize social injuries?

Calling my employer and colleagues to attend an informal get-together allows all participants to voice their opinions and to access each other's points-of-view. I believe this action maximizes social benefits because any underlying grievances are brought into the open and are discussed in a non-judgmental way. This action will also have the effect of minimizing social injuries because the problem is resolved internally and the ground rules of respecting the parameters of each person is re-established.

Q2. Is the action consistent with the moral rights of those whom it will affect?

People who work toward a common goal are required to remain sensitive to each other's basic rights and continually question whether their moral reasoning is fair and just. By strengthening a collaborative working environment, my employer can be assured of an effective workforce that is loyal.