The Case of the Wandering Eyes
The Case of the Wandering Eyes is a good representation of a breach of privacy, regardless of who the patient is. Apparently, the patient specifically requested that his privacy must be kept confidential, to which the only person who must enter his room are the ones who are assigned to him. Apparently, Pat clearly violated not only the request, but also the HIPAA’s protected health information. According to this rule, patient’s information must be protected, including the past and present medical or mental condition, and even the past or future payment of the patient for the provision of care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.). I came to the decision of talking to Pat due to several factors. First, Pat’s actions are clear violation of the law. Second, Pat is my preceptor and must realize the he must follow the rule regardless of his professional attainment. Lastly, not talking to Pat is similar to committing the same mistake that Pat did. The outcome was a surprise to me because knowing Pat, I thought he will not commit such mistake as he should have been a role model for his subordinates. I have learned that the patient’s medical and personal information are extremely important in relation to the existing laws that apply.
The Case of the Confounded Colleague
The case of confounded colleague represents how a personnel may fail to attend to his professional responsibilities. Jared’s case posts potential risks both to the organization and to the patients, which were the basses for the decision to take him off of patient care. I came to that decision because of two concerns. First, I must do something to prevent any potential harm that Jared can cause to the patients. Second, Jared clearly exercise actions that are related to drug abuse, which is a violation of his employment contract and drug-related laws. Using two of the core lenses in ethical decision-making, I should decide to take him off of patient care to sustain the integrity of the organization as well as to maintain a good character of the personnel. According to their description, relationship lens is an ethical action that sustains integrity of the environment, while reputation lens holds consistency in terms of good character (Center for Education in Law and Democracy, n.d.). The outcomes was quite surprising because as a health care professional, Jared is expected to act in accordance with the signed employment contract. In which case I should expect Jared to attend to his professional responsibilities without any potential issues in relation to drugs that could damage his value to the organization. This case has taught me that societal issues, such as drug use can affect not only the society itself, as it can create unexpected problems. For example, a potential harm to the patients due to Jared’s current actions.
References
Center for Education in Law and Democracy. (n.d.). Ethics Project Lenses. Retrieved July 25, 2016, from http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/xcellens.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Methods for De-identification of PHI. Retrieved July 25, 2016, from http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/special-topics/de-identification/index.html#protected
