Problem definition
Jill is an employee and colleague that is well-liked, but her circumstances force her to be otherwise. Her increased levels of stress cause her to portray a poor image of her during the work hours to the extent that it affects both her professionalism and duty. Despite the fact that her colleagues understand her predicament at home, they feel that it is infringing on her duty stirring everyone up including the management. One of the actions that depict that she has been out of it lately is when she hurt the pastor’s wife. Jill’s increased misconduct at the offices has led to significant conflicts between her and her colleagues who have sought a meeting with the management. However, the management, Dr. Iffy is a friend to Jill, and her ex-husband makes everything a little more than personal between him and Jill.
Ethical issues
Provided in the above scenario, there is a moral dilemma at hand. Some of the core principles of ethics and professionalism have been violated. They include beneficence, non-maleficence, paternalism, confidentiality, and veracity (Beemsterboer, 2010). Paternalism refers to making decisions for the common good which is usually opposite to autonomy. Beneficence, on the other hand, implies to eliminate all the existing evil so that good prevails. Non-maleficence is to avoid causing any harm to the patients. Confidentiality is the ability to keep certain pieces information with authorized persons only. Finally, veracity refers to telling truths at all costs. They are some of the core principles that govern service delivery by a health care personnel in addition to autonomy which is the ability to make choices on one’s accord and free will.
The violation of paternalism arises when Dr. Iffy fails to act on the public good by preventing the whole scenario from ever becoming a reality. He is a close friend to Jill’s husband, and he would have acted to eliminate the source of problems to Jill, who would have continued providing over the top services. There is a breach of beneficence when the Dr. Iffy does not decide to give Jill some time to cool off so that she can become herself once more. Thus, the source of all evil would have been curbed. Non-maleficence is breached when Jill hurts the pastor’s wife, her patient while treating her in one of their appointments (Beemsterboer, 2010). Confidentiality, on the other hand, is breached when Dr. Iffy and the pastor begin conversing about Jill’s problems at work and at home. Finally, veracity is breached when Jill lies to everyone that she will change for the better.
Relevant information
First and foremost, it is important to note that Jill has suffered a traumatic experience which has proven to be the source of all her job-related problems. As a result of her divorce and increased stress in parenting singly, she has become increasingly absent-minded and withdrawn. She has become a threat to the patient where she hurt the pastor’s wife while treating her. All the same, she is in constant conflict with her colleagues because of her new found behavior. Jill’s boss, Dr. Iffy is a friend of her family, and so there will be a biased decision-making. There is an increased chance that Dr. Iffy might not choose the appropriate course of action when it comes to making the ultimate and necessary decision to ensure service delivery. Finally, given the time to change by her colleagues, Jill still depicts the same behavior as before.
Alternative positions
The alternative approaches to this dilemma can be considered through the various ethical principles that have been violated, particularly, non-maleficence, beneficence, and paternalism. Considering these three principles, the best course of action that the decision-making could provide would be to dismiss the employee. From paternalism, it would be for the common good of the institution whose reputation is at stake. Beneficence seeks to promote good always by eliminating evil (achieved when Jill is gone). On the same note, Jill could be allowed to take a short break from duty so that she can work out her problems. This would result in conduct improvement in Jill who is on the brink of being fired.
My position
The ethical dilemma, in this case, is to make a moral decision regarding Jill and her conduct at the office and concerning professionalism. She is currently breaking some important ethical guides leading to conflicts with the patients and colleagues. In this sense, I would consider that Jill is to be given some time off work so that she can put her life back on track. Therefore, the will to change would be hers even though it is necessary for the whole dentist team. The fact that the patients have lost faith in her services is indeed wanting to the point that it is threatening her job position. In many cases, she would receive warnings for poor conduct and at the end of it all, a suspension or even a dismissal. Such events, however, happen when ethical decision-making is not employed, which is not the case here.
In support of professionalism, Jill has breached several of the ethical principles raising the eyebrow of many of her colleagues. For this alone, dismissal would do a lot of good for the company where Jill and all her problems will be gone for good. Regardless, she is the current sole breadwinner for her family after her divorce. These ethical principles not only apply in the context of the health practitioner and the patient, but also between employees and their employer. The employer has the duty to uphold non-maleficence and beneficence (Beemsterboer, 2010). In other words, they should ensure that they cause no further harm to an individual, and that is what firing Jill would do to her. Additionally, they should make sure that good is capitalized on which in this case would be Jill’s time to heal her wound and at her pace. Allowing this will ensure that the company regains its honor in her absence and prepare for her return.
Implementation
The decision to be made is, therefore, to provide Jill with sufficient time for her to recover from her loss and allow her to pick herself up concerning her dentist career. This is to follow suit considering that she has failed to change after she informed everyone that she will change for the better. Jill will, therefore, be given a compulsory leave for three months so that she can at least go through her divorce without any further complications arising from her work. She can take care of her children and mother better with the new freedom offered by the leave from the office. In a nutshell, this is ethical decision making.
Reference
Beemsterboer, P. (2010). Ethics and law in dental hygiene. St. Louis, Mo: Saunders/Elsevier.
