Introduction
Organizations are systems that consist of highly integrated groups that aim at accomplishing shared goals. Organization inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes need to be handled with business professionalism. As a result, all organizations need ethics to ensure that they achieve their objectives without being at loggerhead with the law. Statistics proves that managing ethics in businesses holds a tremendous benefit for managers and leaders both practically and morally. In this essay, I choose a hospital as my organization because hospitals need ethics to understand and manage the diverse values and patients.
Rationale for Selecting the Organization
I have chosen the above organization because nurses and other health practitioners make decisions every day concerning their patients in hospitals. These decisions must always consider the ethical standards of the medical field (Preshaw, Brazil, McLaughlin, & Frolic, 2016). Therefore, for nurses and other health practitioners to make appropriate decisions, they must have a clear understanding of how ethics and law in the medical field interface.
Moreover, health practitioners are constantly faced with dilemmas in the medical field due to its changing nature as well as the diverse values and opinions of the patients (Tarım, Zaim, & Torun, 2014). Therefore, hospitals need ethics since doctors must always make decisions that take into consideration the common good of their clients as well as those that respect their autonomy. Heath practitioners and other workers working in a hospice should think independently and must be sensitive to the issues and risks that encompass the healthcare field.
Application of the First Philosophy in Decision-making
According to the first chapter of the article, determining what is evil and good is the first philosophy of ethics. This philosophy concentrates on the human cruelty and affirms that it is the greatest evil. The philosophy offers two concepts on evil where one concept is broad and the other concept is narrow. The broad concept explains the natural and moral evils that are mainly referenced in theological contexts. It proposes that evil is anything that does not result in any good. However, the narrow concept argues that evil is what does not consider the good of the majority. This is similar to the utilitarian moral theory since it argues that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences (Lennerfors, 2013). Therefore, a moral deed is the one the produces good for most people and vice versa.
These principles of the philosophy of good and evil can be applied in the hospitals during decision-making process. For instance, during the case where a patient is very sick and requests a doctor for euthanasia, the medical practitioner can use these principles and apply the nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficense is a principle that argues that doctors should not harm their patients and are required to heal them. Besides, these principles can also be applied in cases where the doctor is faced with the dilemma of respecting patients’ autonomy or making a decision regarding their medication. This is because the principle outlines that a moral deed is that which produces good for the majority thus the medical practitioner should consider the patient and the family.
Application of the Second Philosophy in Decision-making
According to the article, the second philosophy is ethical relativism. Relativism is concerned with an individual culture where it asserts that the morality of an action depends on the norms of the society (Harman, 2015). The philosophy offers two principles and the first one is the fact that morality of an action differs among different people where what is deemed as right in one society might be wrong in another. The second principle is the fact that morality is mannerism. The philosophy deems morality as what is socially acceptable in a community such as the manner of dressing, eating as well as behaving.
These principles can be applied in a hospital in situations where the nurse is in a dilemma of whether making his or her decision or respecting the decision made by a patient regarding his or her treatment. Though not all patients’ decisions are appropriate, the nurse can strive to understand the reason why a patient prefers certain medication to the other. That is because the treatment that the nurse is suggesting might not be acceptable in the patients’ society. Besides, the principles can be applied in handling the diverse values and opinions of both workers and patients in a hospital. The reason is that they all come from different communities with diverse mannerisms.
Application of the Third Philosophy in Decision-making
The third philosophy is utilitarianism. As discussed in chapter four, utilitarianism is a theory that was developed by Jeremy Bentham and developed by John Mill. The theory asserts that a good deed is the one that maximizes utility. From this philosophy, we get two principles and the first one is the fact that morality was established to increase the amount of good things in life thus making life better. That is because it assesses the morality of an action through its benefits to the society or the individuals involved. The other principle is the fact that morality of an action is determined by its consequences (Mulgan, 2015). Therefore, even if some people may deem an action as wrong, its consequences can make it right.
The above principles can be applied in a hospital where the workers and the medical practitioners make decisions depending on the actions that will benefit most people. For instance, the medical practitioners should consider those actions that will benefit the patient, family, community and the country when identifying the best medication to use on patients.
A Philosophy that would be Detrimental
I believe that application of relativism in hospitals can be detrimental. This is because the philosophy argues that morality is mannerism where it depends on the community. The philosophy offers two principles, and the first one is the fact that that morality is mannerism. The philosophy deems morality as what is socially acceptable in a community such as the manner of dressing, eating as well as behaving. The second principle is the fact morality of an action differs among different people where what is deemed as right in one society might be wrong in another (Harman, 2015).
Though this philosophy can be used in decision-making in hospitals, I deem it as detrimental since it can negatively influence a patients’ decision-making. That is because some treatment procedures that are accepted by the patients’ society can be harmful. For example, praying for an individual instead of taking them to hospices and cutting off the organ that is infected since it is viewed as an impurity. Besides, a patient can refuse to undergo a certain treatment such as cancer treatments because his or her society believes that cancer is evil and the treatment is death.
Conclusion
It is apparent from the above discussion that ethics are essential in a hospital since nurses and other health practitioners make decisions every day concerning their patients. Handling the diverse values as well as opinions of the people in a hospital also requires the knowledge of ethics. Besides, the above discussed philosophies and their principles can be applied in hospitals during the decision-making process by both the doctors and other subordinate staffs.
References
Harman, G. (2015). Moral relativism is moral realism. Philosophical Studies, 172(4), 855-863. doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0298-8
Lennerfors, T. T. (2013). Beneath good and evil? Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(4), 380-392. doi:10.1111/beer.12030
Mulgan, T. (2015). Utilitarianism for a Broken World. Utilitas, 27(1), 92-114. doi:10.1017/S0953820814000338
Preshaw, D. L., Brazil, K., McLaughlin, D., & Frolic, A. (2016). Ethical issues experienced by healthcare workers in nursing homes. Nursing Ethics, 23(5), 490-506. doi:10.1177/0969733015576357
Tarım, M., Zaim, H., & Torun, Y. (2014). The Effects of Work Ethics Practices on Hospital Performance: A Field Study on Public Hospitals. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics, 7(2), 135-151. doi:10.12711/tjbe.2014.7.2.0153
