Ethical Principles Application in Practice

Discussion Week 1

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that in this scenario, the practice is not ethical. More specifically, as a physician, referring all the patient lab work to BioLabs – where Dr. Smithfire has a 50% stake – could be deemed unethical. In Kant’s philosophy on morals, he argues that all humans have the ability to understand and reason on the moral laws that are applicable in all situations (Barrow and Khandhar, 2020). Misselbrook (2013) defines one of Kant’s categorical imperative formulae as, “act only by that maxim by which you can, at the same time, will that it be a universal law” (211). In this scenario, I would ask myself whether referring all the patient lab work to a single entity would be acceptable if all other physicians were to do the same. The answer would be a no. This is more so the case given that if every physician were to receive the very same directions, fairness and competition in this realm would be stifled and other stakeholders would be disadvantaged. Thus, this would be going against what is reasonable. This is more so the case given that as Barrow and Khandhar (2020) observe, “all humans have universal rational duties to one another…” In embracing the said directions, I would be failing in my duty to other players in the profession.

In Kant’s second categorical formulae, he emphasizes on treating individuals solely and not as a means to justify an end (Barrow and Khandhar, 2020). In this scenario, referring patients’ lab results to a single entity could be seen as a tendency to place commercial interests before the interests of patients. The only agenda in such a case appears to be moving the family business forward – effectively meaning that patients would merely be a means to justify that particular end.