Ethical Dilemma in the Workplace

Ethical Dilemma in the Workplace

Author

Institution

Introduction

Issues pertaining to ethics in the workplace have become increasingly popular and controversial in the recent times. This may have resulted from the increase in the channels through which the activities in companies and business entities are exposed. Needless to say, different workplaces come with certain sets of code of conducts, with their employees being bound by these regulations and rules in an effort to ensure the smooth running of these organizations. However, there are instances where the expectations or the provisions of these statutes are in conflict with the personal beliefs, principles and relationships of the employees. These instances are referred to as ethical dilemmas where an individual would be required to weigh and evaluate the right and wrong pertaining to their actions (Clarkson, 2000). It is worth noting that, in cases of ethical dilemmas, the individual would be faced with two or more courses of action, both of which would have a negative aspect, albeit in varying degrees. In essence, this paper examines an ethical dilemma that may occur in the work place and attempts to use a number of ethical theories to come up with an appropriate resolution for the conflict of interest.

The ethical dilemma

Kelvin has been contracted as a technical communicator for one of the major healthcare sector Denver, Colorado. He is tasked with the development of an entirely new software system that would form a database, allowing for the gathering of all records from health maintenance organizations, clinics, hospitals, physicians and laboratories in the locality. The records incorporate personal information pertaining to the patients and are highly private and confidential in nature. In essence, they have to be handled with care as any revelation on the classified information may result in tremendous damage to all parties involved including the organization, the individuals whose information is in these records, as well as me. Indeed, such revelations may limit their capacity to get jobs or promotions as their employers may form pre-conceived ideas pertaining to the performance capabilities of these individuals. There may also be personal costs, stigma or even broken relationships. This underlines the importance of ensuring that the privacy and confidentiality of these records is guarded jealously.

However, the software development project allows him to come across some information pertaining to two of his friends. While going through the information in the healthcare organizations, he comes across the name of one of his best friends called Cathy. He realizes that she has been diagnosed with HIV, a terminal and sexually transmitted illness, and is undergoing counseling and treatment for the same in a local clinic. Cathy is dating one of Kelvin’s best friends named Michael, whom Kelvin has known since the elementary school as they lived in the same locality. Indeed, this is a friend who has stuck out for him in quite a number of instances. Kelvin thinks that Michael is unaware of Cathy’s status, otherwise he would have broken up the relationship and even informed him about it. The situation becomes even worse considering that Michael and Cathy are about to have their wedding in three weeks time.

This piece of information leaves Kelvin in an ethical dilemma as he is torn between the rules and regulations or obligations with which his job comes and the relationship with his friends. Failure to inform his friend would safeguard his integrity and allow him to keep the job that he desperately needs. However, such an action may jeopardize Michael’s safety and marriage. The option of revealing the information would allow his friend to make an informed choice, but may cost the organization its reputation and jeopardize his job, not only in the organization but also in others.

The resolution of this conflict necessitates that Kelvin determines the party whose interests he would have to sacrifice. The principled reasoning approach would come in handy in this case as it would allow him to assess all the issues that are in the dilemma. First, he would define the problem and determine the principles that have to be met. In addition, an identification of all stakeholders in the dilemma and the claims that they have to it would be carried out, before all likely solutions are determined. The consequences of the possible solutions would then be tested before an ethical process for the implementation of the solution is developed.

On the same note, two paradigms may be crucial in the evaluation of the dilemma. These include “Truth vs. loyalty” and “individual vs. community” (Clarkson, 2000). Kelvin may be obligated to tell his friend the truth about his fiancée, but he also owes loyalty to the healthcare organization. In addition, he may have to determine whether to save his own job and financial prospects through remaining silent, or giving out the information to his friend thereby saving his life while destroying the reputation of the company and probably jeopardizing his prospects of employment and financial freedom in the organization, as well as others. In addition, ethical theories such as utilitarianism, absolutism and virtue ethics would come in handy in the evaluation of possible ways of resolving the conflict. Of particular note is the fact that these theories and paradigms would never really resolve a dilemma, rather they allow an individual to determine the things that he or she can sacrifice or the things that really matter to them, thereby coming up with a decision. They strip away the unnecessary or unimportant details, thereby allowing the individual to determine only the fundamental aspects of the same (Clarkson, 2000). In essence, Kelvin will ultimately have to make a decision on the course of action to take.

Definition of the problem

Determining the problem or the issues that conflict would be imperative in the case of Kelvin. The key issue, in this case, revolves around the fact that the Kelvin has discovered that the fiancée of his friend has tested HIV positive. Of particular note is the fact that Kelvin discovered this piece of information while entering data for healthcare institutions as part of a contract for the digitalization of healthcare services. In essence, the healthcare institutions are obligated, or rather, required by the law to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of patients’ information, and ensure that all information is only revealed to authorized individuals. Indeed, the HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards for the protection of individuals’ medical records, as well as other personal health information (Ezra, 2006). The rule is applied to healthcare clearing houses, health plans, as well as healthcare providers that carry out certain transactions pertaining to the healthcare electronically. The rule underlines the importance of putting into place appropriate safeguards for the protection of privacy of the patients’ healthcare information while setting conditions and limits pertaining to the disclosure and use of that information without the authorization of the patient. In addition, the rule allows patients to have the right over information pertaining to their health including the right to get a copy and examine their health records, as well as request for corrections. Covered entities may divulge Protected Health Information in an effort to facilitate payment, treatment and healthcare operations without the express written authorization of the patient. All other disclosure of the patient health information necessitate that the covered entity obtains a written or formal authorization for the disclosure from the individual. Nevertheless, in instances where the covered entity discloses such Patient Health Information, it is required to make reasonable effort to only disclose the most (minimum) necessary information that is required for the achievement of its purpose. Touching more on Kelvin’s case is the fact that the Department of Health and Human Services broadened the scope of HIPAA privacy rule to encompass independent contractors pertaining to covered entities that fit in the definition of business associates (Clarkson, 2000). This underlines the fact that Kelvin, as an independent contractor would still be required to obtain formal authorization from his friend’s fiancé to allow for the disclosure of such information.

If he discloses the information without such authorization, he would be violating the codes of ethics of the company and may end up losing the job that he so much depends on for survival (Ezra, 2006). If he chooses to keep quiet, he would be disloyal to his long time friend, and may put him under the risk of contracting a terminal illness. It is required that he observes the professional code of ethics pertaining to his job, yet it is equally important that he acts as his brother’s keeper and discloses that all-important information.

Principles that need to be satisfied/ Conflicting Principles

Kelvin’s case necessitates an examination of the principles that must be satisfied. Indeed, Kelvin’s dilemma would be perfectly explained by the paradigm of Truth vs. loyalty. An examination of the different course of actions and the possible outcomes of the same reveals that Kelvin’s dilemma has its foundation on the values that the society holds as fundamental.

Kelvin, on one hand, has the option of telling Michael about the health condition of his fiancée Cathy, an option that is rooted in the fundamental value of truth. Considering that he knows the risk in which Cathy’s health condition or HIV status puts Michael, who is his long time and close friend, Kelvin is primarily obligated to disclose the information to Michael.

On the other hand, Kelvin has the option of keeping the information to himself, an option that has its roots on the fundamental value of loyalty. Indeed, it is imperative that Kelvin retains his loyalty to the company and the healthcare institutions that have given him the responsibility to digitize the healthcare records (Clarkson, 2000). Kelvin is required by the HIPAA rule to protect the confidentiality of such information and only divulge it after obtaining formal authorization for the same. This underlines the fact that Kelvin is required to balance the two fundamental values, both of which are right and the defiance of which would have dire consequences on both his life and the life of his friend, or even their friendship.

These two courses of action are in conflict with each other. Kelvin’s decision to tell his friend Michael the truth about his fiancée is in conflict with the statutory requirement that he remains loyal to the hospital through maintaining confidence. He would, undoubtedly, be right to disclose the information to his friend Michael as he would essentially save a life. On the same note, he would be right to remain silent as he would be adhering to the professional code of ethics for which he signed under the HIPAA rule.

Stakeholders and an assessment of their claims

The dilemma that Kelvin faces revolves around the obligations that he has to his company or employer and those that he owes to his friend Michael. Indeed, these are the two fundamental or crucial stakeholders whose claims he has to consider when coming up with a decision on the appropriate course of action. First, the contracting healthcare institution has put in place a code of ethics that requires all individuals handling the personal health information to maintain its confidentiality and never divulge such information to any unauthorized individuals. This is also a requirement that is stated in the constitution governing all healthcare institutions and providers. The consequences of divulging such information are extremely undesirable and far-reaching, stretching from the personal lives of the patients, to their careers and even the future of the healthcare institutions in question. Indeed, such disclosure could result in litigations against the healthcare institution, tattered reputation and even affect its profitability and sustainability in the present and the future. This, in essence, also puts Kelvin’s financial future at stake as it could result in the termination of the contract and loss of the much-needed income. It goes without saying that the trust that the healthcare institution has for Kelvin would be irreparably damaged. This underlines the high stakes under which Kelvin is operating, as well as the necessity of maintaining the confidentiality and privacy of the healthcare records.

Such disclosure would also affect Michael’s future extensively. The disclosure would, undoubtedly, necessitate that Michael confronts his fiancée and possibly calls off the wedding, which is in two weeks’ time. Indeed, the disclosure would also affect the friendship and trust that Cathy has for Kelvin. It is reasonable that Michael would expect that Kelvin gives him every information and detail that he feels would be important to him, irrespective of the manner in which he obtained it considering that they have been close friends for a long time.

Possible solutions

The resolution of this moral dilemma necessitates that the options that Kelvin has are laid out and examined in line with their implications. Indeed, the dilemma would only be resolved once in the analysis of a rigidly bipolar ethical dilemma, a middle way or ground between the two rights is opened up. Of particular note is the fact that moral dilemmas do not emanate from instances that have “right” or “wrong” decisions, rather it is a conflict between two rights. In fact, the dilemma is a representation of conflicts between moral temptations and ethical decisions. Needless to say, coming up with a middle ground is considerably difficult in Kelvin’s case as the options are rigidly bipolar. He has the option of disclosing the information to Michael or failing to disclose it thereby jeopardizing his life. A closer examination of the dilemma, however, may reveal some other options or courses of action that Kelvin may take. For instance, Kelvin may broach the subject of the increasing cases of HIV/Aids and how it has affected the society in general. He could then underline the importance of being tested or rather knowing one’s status, as well as that of one’s partner before getting intimate or getting married. He could then ask Michael casually whether he has taken the test or whether he knows Cathy’s status and insist that he goes ahead and knows it before getting intimate with her or even going ahead with the wedding.

The decision seems a bit wanting especially considering that he would essentially not be giving the all-important information to Michael, rather it would be some form of advise. Indeed, it is highly likely that Michael would not feel any need to change his plans and course of action as there he would be unaware of any threat to his health just yet.

Testing the Consequences of the Decision or Course of Action

The resolution of the moral and ethical dilemma in this case necessitates the testing of the chosen resolution so as to determine the side that comes closest “right” in the prevailing circumstances. This can only be achieved through a close examination of the consequences of the different course of action using varied theories espoused by philosophers (Ukens, 2008). The consequentialist approach, commonly referred to as utilitarianism, would be helpful in this case. The approach involves an evaluation of the course of action in terms of the outcomes or consequences. In this case, the net costs and benefits for all stakeholders at an individual level would be considered. This approach aims at achieving the greatest good for the highest number of people, while preventing the highest amount of suffering or generating the least amount of suffering and harm. This approach underlines the fact that the interests of ever entity must be equally considered when making a decision, including the interests of other species as that have the capacity to suffer. Of particular note is the fact that the weight of the benefits and costs would not be limited to those pertaining to tangible value, rather it would stretch to the intangible. The application of consequentialist approach underlines the fact that any course of action has its pros and cons.

Disclosure of the information to Michael will undoubtedly give him an opportunity to rethink his decision to get married to Cathy. It will, undoubtedly, save him from the risk of contracting the terminal ailment and, of course, underline the untrustworthy nature of his fiancée. However, it would be detrimental to the company and may jeopardize the job prospects of Kelvin alongside to other workers that primarily depend on the healthcare institution for their livelihood. On the same note, it may cause breakage of marriage and friendship, not to mention the immense loses pertaining to the finances used in planning the wedding.

Failure to disclose the information to Michael, on the other hand, would jeopardize the latter’s health and life in the short-term and long-term (Harding, 2010). This course of action, however, would retain the reputation of the healthcare institution with which he works and save jobs for its workers. In addition, it would ensure the sustainability of the institution, as well as his continuous earning potential.

Looking at the tangible benefits, it would appear that keeping the information from Michael would be the best option in this case, at least going by the utilitarianism. However, the greatest good, including the intangible benefits, would revolve around disclosing the information to Michael. There is absolutely no way that the financial benefits pertaining to keeping his job or retaining the reputation of the healthcare institution can be equated to the preservation of life. Indeed, life is costly and has to be protected at all costs (Ukens, 2008). In fact, there are high chances that Michael will eventually discover his wife’s health status after they go ahead with the wedding, but it may be too late to reverse the consequences. In addition, the information may be passed to him in a manner that would not jeopardize the reputation of the healthcare institution. Indeed, passing the information to him does not necessarily mean that he has to inform his fiancée about the source of information. Informing him of the consequences of such a thing would allow him to rethink the manner in which he broaches the subject (Harding, 2010). He could simply ask his fiancée to accompany him to take the test, without showing any signs that he knows or has been informed that she is HIV positive. In addition, the risk of breaking up the wedding of his friend becomes mute especially considering that Michael’s life is at stake and there are high chances that the marriage will break up if Michael discovers that the wife has not been into full disclosure.

Emanuel Kant’s duty or deontological ethics may also be used in determining the course of action that would be most appropriate in this case. Deontological theory underlines the fact that human beings are under a moral obligation to act in line with a certain collection or set of rules and principles irrespective of the outcomes. This means that there are certain things that human beings are obligated to do irrespective of how bad the outcomes may be. This theory is, undoubtedly, a complete opposite of the utilitarian theory. The deontological theory is built on three imperatives. First, it underlines the fact that individuals should only “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”. Moral propositions, according to Kant, should not be tied to any conditions. Moral maxims should be disconnected from physical details pertaining to the proposition and should be universally applicable to all rational human beings. Even closer to the situation at hand is the insinuation that human beings have imperfect duties that have their foundation on pure reason while allowing for interpretation pertaining to their performance. Imperfect duties are still reliant on people’s subjective preferences, in which case they are not as strong as their perfect counterparts. However, they still come as morally binding. The imperative bears some similarities with the Golden Rule, which states “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” (Shakil, 2012). Kant’s second imperative cautions against the use of individuals as a means to an end rather, they should be seen as an end to themselves. It states that individuals should only “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end” (Shakil, 2012). In the third imperative, Kant suggests that “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”. This imperative underlines the fact that laws should only be seen as laws of conduct in instances where they are universal. Individuals should not treat other peoples a means to an end, rather they should see them as ends. They should only act on laws that are in harmony with the likely kingdom of ends. They have a duty to only act by rules that generate possible and coherent states of natural affairs in instances where they try to universalize them. They also have an imperfect duty to not act by rules that result in greatly undesirable or unstable state of affairs for the parties concerned.

Developing an Ethical Solution Implementation Process

Using Kant’s theory and the utilitarian or consequentialist theory, it is imperative that Kelvin informs his friend about the status of his fiancée and future wife. The utilitarian theory underlines the importance of establishing the benefits and the costs of the different courses of action and determining the one that carries more weight. Irrespective of the tangible benefits and costs that may be at play, at no one time will the life of an individual be substitutable with any material property. In essence, saving the life of Michael comes as the greatest good, in which case Kelvin should do all he can to inform Michael about the health status of his fiancée. In addition, Kant’s theory underlines the importance of examining individuals not merely as means but also as ends in themselves. Failure to disclose the information to Michael would be tantamount to using him as a way of sustaining his job and that of others. Examining him as an end would entail disclosing the information to him, considering that he has a life to live and the feelings of a human being.

References

Shakil, A (2012). Kantian Duty Based (Deontological) Ethics. Seven Pillars Institute, web retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics” http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics

Harding, C. G. (2010). Moral dilemmas and ethical reasoning. New Brunswick [N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

Clarkson, P. (2000). Ethics: Working with ethical and moral dilemmas in psychotherapy. London: Whurr.

Ukens, L. L. (2008). What would you do?: A game of ethical and moral dilemma : participant’s workbook. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.

Ezra, O. (2006). Moral dilemmas in real life: Current issues in applied ethics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.