Professional ethics

Professional ethics

There are various ethical issue questions that arise out of the behaviors of Dr. Smith. One ethical question would be; is it right for a professional to ignore the rules and betray those whom he is supposed to protect? Another ethical issue question would be; can business interests override the ethical provisions in psychiatry such as beneficence, integrity, compassion and trustworthiness? This is because the actions of the psychiatrist go against most of the ethical practices that he should observe in his practice.

The ethical issues can be captured as; is it fair for Dr. Smith to deny child-abusing parents the opportunity to get counseling and also to deny abused children justice by refusing to report their abusers to the authorities?

The utilitarian theory says that one’s actions must promote or accord maximum benefits to the majority. This means that the value of the consequences that accrue from the actions of a person should be the sole determinant of whether the act is right or wrong (Fischer, 2010). The acts of Dr. Smith go against most of the rules that should be observed by anybody who cares about the majority. This is because his confidentiality policy is unjustifiable as it seeks to protect a few aggressors against facing justice for the benefit of the majority who are the children.

In analyzing whether the actions of Dr. Smith are morally justifiable, the possible answers that should be looked into include what are the rules governing his practice, the beneficiaries from his practice and what are the acceptable norms in society that anyone should follow.

His actions based on utilitarian theory are not morally justifiable since they ensure that the aggressors i.e. the child-abusing parents continue with their actions knowing very well that they have someone who will conceal their identity to the authorities. His actions also prevent such parents from seeking professional guidance and counseling that would inform them of the serious negative implications that their actions are having on their children. Dr. Smith abuses his moral responsibility of allowing such parents seek assistance from other therapists since their behavior is curable. This is because the lives of these children are being ruined both in the short and long run. These children may come to accept the behaviors they are seeing in their parents as the norm rather than the exception. This would negatively impact on their future parental roles as they may also behave in a similar manner towards their siblings. This would contribute to moral decadence in society and increase immorality. Such a society would be ruined and most people would suffer. The actions of the doctor ignore other better options that would have benefited the child-abusers and the entire society.

The behavior of Dr Smith can also be analyzed using deontological ethics. Deontology postulates that one’s behavior must be guided by his adherence to duty and the law (Fritz & Vaidya, 2008).

The confidentiality policy of Dr. Smith is also not morally justifiable using deontology ethics. This is because the doctor ought to have established whether the act of protecting these child abusers is right or wrong before looking at other issues like business interests or the outcome of the actions. This is because the doctor appears to perfect his behavior because most of the child abusers keep referring others to him and his business could be performing well. But according to deontology, this behavior or action is immoral since there are no laws that can support the abuse of children especially when those doing it are the same ones who should be at the frontline safeguarding their interests. The consequences of the actions of the doctor are that children’s lives will be ruined since the continued abuse will lead to physical and psychological harm. His actions also prevent these parents and the children from seeking guidance and counseling from professionals. This is because such parents need to be separated from the society in order to make children lead the normal lives that they should.

If Dr. Smith could have done the moral thing i.e. identify the reasons why such parents are behaving that way and encourage them to seek professional help, the society in which these people live could have benefited (Scott, 2009). This is because both parents and the abused children could have accessed professional help and assistance from other institutions such as children homes and counselors. It could also have facilitated the opening up of these children where those who have abused them could be apprehended by the authorities and face justice. This could have sounded a warning to those who may be thinking or attempting to abuse children. Dr. Smith therefore failed to stick to his duty of doing what morally right when he offered refuge to the child-abusers and denied them access to help from other professionals. His actions also prevented the abused children access to medical and professional help. The nature of the actions of the doctor was immoral on the face of it and ought not to have been allowed.

I would support the deontological position in proving that the doctor’s behavior is unjustifiable. This is because deontology or duty ethics emphasize on according equal value to all human beings but the doctor is totaling ignoring the plight of the abused children who he should even be according priority. This position emphasizes that human rights of everybody even if it’s a minority must be upheld simply because it is the right thing to do. The fact that the children have no voice does not imply that they are lesser human beings.

Deontology is also clear that some acts are always wrong and should never be allowed by any society. This is because there is no form of reasoning that should have allowed the doctor to act in the way he did. Regardless of whether he was protecting his business interests or his customers, this was the wrong thing to do. This theory therefore provides certainty since it mainly concentrates on the nature of the doctor’s action itself without paying much attention to consequences. Nevertheless, the action of the doctor and its consequences are not permissible anywhere. The intention and motive of the doctor cannot be said to be well intended. This is because he is a professional and understands the implications of his behavior. It can therefore be said that the doctor is acting carelessly and should be reprimanded for his actions. This is because they hinge on professional negligence and incompetence of the highest order. This is due to his failure to utilize his knowledge and failing to observe what is moral and legal in society which does not even require any professional knowledge.

 

References

Fischer, B. (2010). Utilitarian Theory and Application. New York. Oxford University Press.

Fritz, A. & Vaidya, A.(eds.) (2008). Professions in Ethical Focus: An Anthology. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Scott, E. (2009). Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

 

 

 

 

 

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]