Resolving Ethical Dilemmas a Guide for Clinicians †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Resolving Ethical Dilemmas a Guide for Clinicians. Answer: Introduction Charges of profession misconduct were brought against Dr. Susan Lim after she charged her patient approximately $24 million for the services she provided. These charges were deemed excessive which brought into question her ethical conduct. As a doctor who is not only experienced but also regarded as one of the best in her field, she reserved the right to charge her own prices (Singapore Medical Council, 2013).The objective of this essay is to analyze this case and come to judgment whether or not it was right for her to charge so much. The ministry of health found her liable after going through the numerous charges were brought against her Virtue ethics theory. The virtue theory judges a person by his/her character rather than by an action that may deviate from his/ her normal behavior. It takes the persons morals, reputation and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical. However, this theory has one weakness is that it does not take into consideration a personal change in moral character (Lo,2012) In our case here Dr. Susan Lim was one of the best practitioners in the field of expertise .she was well known in the country for being the first doctor in the country to perform a liver transplant and it was a successful one. She had enough experience to be trusted with the life of the queens sister. If you had seen her credentials before she was given the job of taking care of the queens sister, you would have agreed to any amount of money she would have quoted for the treatment. Charging $. 24 million would have sounded like a bargain because with her experience and credential and the amount of money she was asking for, that is assurance enough that she would have positive results in the treatment. On the other hand, if Dr. Susan Lim had asked for that kind of money without her fame and experiences my guess is that the Brunei royal family would have done an inquiry into the cost of the treatment and investigate the doctor to make sure that her claims were legitimate According to this theory, both the Brunei family and Dr. Susan are both right and wrong. The royal family is right for wanting the best treatment for their family. They went for the best in the business regardless of how much it would cost them. They were wrong to believe the doctors price of treatment and sue her later for overcharging them. The doctor was right to charge the amount she charged. She was the best doctor and they chose her. She charged them excessive amount because he believed the care and treatment she provided was worth the amount. It was not right for the doctor to overcharge the doctor the royal family although at the time there were no guidelines or law on how much was overcharging. If a person .who is well off going to a high-end shop and buys a product, the same product which he has bought from a regular shop but at a much cheaper price. This person can complain that the high-end shop is has conned him because it was his choice to go with the expensive and luxurious experience which comes with the high-end shop. The same applies to the Dr. Susan case Deontological theory. Deontological theory recognizes specific moral duties as having inherent value in them which needs no further justification. Moral actions are evaluated on the basis of inherent rightness or wrongness rather than goodness or a primary consideration of wrongness (Carne, 2010) distinguishes between strong deontological theories based on the relevance or irrelevance of goodness of an Act. The basic Assumption of this is that theory is that there is no rationale on which an individuals duty can be logically decided on (Lo,2012) Dr. Susan had an obligation to care and treat the member of the royal family (Carne,2010). She was the best and she did her best in performing her duty. The Brunei royal family sued Susan for the amount of money she charged them for her services not how she performed her job. In Dr. Susans defense for someone to complain about amount charged after services offered one should first have a problem with the quality of the services or they should have an issue with the service. Dr. Susan treated the queens sister for over 3 years for her breast cancer. During these years, she billed them in the amount of approximately $24 million for her services. The royal family and the Bruneian government were dissatisfied with the amount and sought help from the ministry of health of Singapore to bring charges against her. A panel of three judges found her liable for professional misconduct The ethical issue here is whether Dr. Susan was right or wrong for charging the royal family way above the market rate for her services. The Brunei royal family (the queen's sister in particular) patients need the best care they can get. It does not matter if you are the best or the worst physician all that matters is that you provide the best care you can provide. The Singapore Medical Council (SMC).It is the body responsible for overseeing doctors activities and making sure that doctors behave accordingly and do not take advantage of their patients. According to (Medical Ethics Today,2012). Your ethical responsibility to charge fair and reasonable fees that goes over and above contractual and market forces means that even if patients acquiesce to your charges (thus forming a contract), you are not absolved from the responsibility of charging reasonable fees. This principle has been affirmed by the courts in Singapore. In business terms, a contract is binding and it might be argued that should patients agree to a level of fees presented to them, they have no reason for complaint. However, this is not in the spirit of professionalism (Tan et al,2015) The doctors. In this case Dr. Susan represents all the doctors and the whole profession. These three are the parties affected directly by this case .there are those who are affected. I am one of those who have been affected also but not directly. As a member and representative of the Singapore Association for Counseling (SAC), I am tasked with the responsibility of impartially assessing this case and coming up with a judgment on Dr. Susan. There is also the government and the general public Dr. Susans act exposed a loop hall in the private sector where the doctor has to set the amount to charge their patients. Overcharging patients is now deemed an ethical violation. The problem comes in determining how much is overcharging. Since the doctors understand the complexity of their services and that the same services may be different in different patients, it becomes difficult to decide the exact amount that is too much Ethical misconduct leads to criminal charges which end up in loose of operating licenses .suspension from practice and or fines (Singapore Medical Council,2013) the doctor billed the royal family approximately $ 24 million for her services. Dissatisfied with the costs, the Bruneian government sought the intervention of ministry of health of Singapore, which started the disciplinary proceedings. The court thoroughly examined the 94 charges against Dr. Susan and found that her fees charged were grossly excessive and vastly disproportionate to the services actually provided the court found her liable for professional misconduct (Bond,2015). Dr. Susan had an obligation to provide her patient with all the information about her treatment. That includes the information on how much the treatment was going to cost and have evidence to back her up SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines community looks up to doctors as being part of a noble profession. As such, profit motives must be subservient to treating patients in their best interests (Australian Society of Rehabilitation Counsellors, 2014). Where you have the ability to set fees, ethical charging means: 1.Due to the fact that medical practice is a profession that is governed by rules, the amount of fees changed must be reasonably fair and be in accordance with the work done and the surrounding circumstances. 2.Fees charged must be such that they do not bring about any dispute to the profession. Therefore, you must exercise due consideration in setting your fees. The appropriateness of your fees is subject to the review of peers. 3.You must only charge fees for services directly rendered by yourself or those who are directly under your supervision. You may collect fees on behalf of other doctors, who have assisted you in your overall care of your patients, but taking additional fees for oneself in situation where you have not provided any services for other doctors is not permitted. 4.There must be transparency in setting fees and patients must be informed of the chargeable fees in advance before they are provided with services. However the agreement by patients to pay the amount of fees charged does not pardon an individual from charging just fees. The ethical obligation to charge fair fees for services provided is not guided by any agreement between a medical professional and a patient but it operates above the market forces (Carne,2010). Dr. Susan was not transparent on some of the charges for her services. Some of her invoices could not be explained. The amount she charged was overly excessive even though she reserved the right to charge her own fees for her services. The ministry of health and the SMC had the obligation to take legal action against her (McLeod McLeod, 2011). According to me, Dr. Susan overcharged her patient which is a violation of her ethical duty. She was the best option and gave her best but that did not give her the right to charge so much. According to her experience and status in the medical field, it is expected that her services would not come cheap. The Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines clearly stipulate that doctors should charge their patients fairly and be transparent on their charges (Douglas, 2014) Dr. Susan was not transparent, not fair. My judgment is that she is liable for the professional misconduct and should suffer the consequences of her actions Some questions about this case might arise. E.g. what if the patient had agreed to the costs?. The royal family had sued for being overcharged. Although in this case there was no agreement on the cost it is correct to assume that for her experience and status it would have been okay to charge more than the market rate for her services. Another question it raises is; should the wealth of social status determine how much doctors charge their patients. The royal family has one of the highest statuses and is kind of expected that they want the best of services available. The sister of a queen is no ordinary patient and I do not think the royal family would agree to their family member being given treatment just like any other ordinary patient. My own intuition tells me that the doctor was guilty of taking advantage of her client and should face the law (Icheku,2011). Conclusion Dr. Susan had the right to charge her own client the way she saw fit. In this case, she went too far by charging way much above the agreed rates. This in return brought her ethical conduct into question because it is defrauding them. She was fined and suspended from practice for a specific period of time. The SMC clearly stipulates that doctors should charge their clients for the direct services they offer. it also says that the amount charged should be transparent and fair I, therefore, stand by the ruling of the court that the doctor was liable of professional misconduct References Australian Society of Rehabilitation Counsellors. (2014). Code of ethics: For the profession of rehabilitation counselling. Hurlstone Park, N.S.W: Australian Society of Rehabilitation Counsellors. Awoyemi, J. A. (2014). Ethical code for counselling in education in a multicultural society. Place of publication not identified: Lulu Com. Medical Ethics Today: The BMA's Handbook of Ethics and Law. (2012). New York, NY: John Wiley Sons. Bond, T. I. M. (2015). Standards and Ethics for Counselling in Action. London: SAGE Publications Carne, R. (2010). Professional ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Douglas Birsch(2014) Introduction to Ethical Theories: A Procedural Approach. Illinois: Long Icheku, V. (2011). Understanding ethics and ethical decision-making. Xlibris Corporation. Lo, B. (2012). Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. Lippincott Williams Wilkins. McLeod, J., McLeod, J. (2011). Counselling skills: A practical guide for counsellors and helping professionals. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Proctor, G. M. (2014). Values Ethics in Counselling and Psychotherapy.London.SAGE Publications Psychotherapy Counselling Federation of Australia., American Psychological Association., British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. (2011). Code of ethics: The ethical framework for best practice in counselling and psychotherapy. Fitzroy North, Vic: PACFA. Schlabach, G. A., Peer, K. S. (2008). Professional ethics in athletic training. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier. Tan, C. T., Leong, J., Tan, A., Tan, D., Executive Counselling and Training Academy,. (2015). Essentials of counselling competencies: A practical guide. V Singapore, L. M. L. S. Medical Council [2013] SGHC 122. High CourtOriginating Summons No 780 of 2012 Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, VK Rajah JA and Tan Lee Meng J 15 January 2013