Ethics Case Study Essay Example

a life-threatening situation, Jerry should advise them to go straight to the closest emergency room for treatment. Accountability The doctrine of respondent superior, or doctrine of respondeat superior, states that an employer is accountable for the negligence or mistakes of their employees while they are performing their duties (Cornell University Law School, 1993). In this case, the doctrine of respondent superior would only protect Jerry if Dr. Williams was in control of Jerry's actions and instructed him to refill the Valium prescription.

In conclusion, the doctrine of respondent superior does not offer protection to Jerry. Jerry is legally responsible for any negative reaction the patient may experience. It is crucial that Jerry consistently follows protocol. Jerry must comprehend the significance of not surpassing his qualifications. No matter how insistent a patient may be, Jerry must consult with Dr. Williams before making any decisions, especially ones outside his expertise. When a patient asks Jerry to perform a task he knows he is not qualified for, he must clarify to the patient why he cannot fulfill their request.

Jerry should consult his superior before taking any action if he is unsure about refilling the prescription. Numerous companies have implemented policies to inform patients of the required timeframes for processing prescription refills. This ensures that patients are aware of the need to request a refill in advance to receive it on time. Jerry should familiarize himself with the policy at his workplace and communicate the company's policies to the patient. Furthermore, Jerry must consider the legal and ethical implications that may impact his decision regarding ordering the prescription refill.

If Jerry is aware that he is unable to refill

the prescription, it might discourage him from doing so. He should understand that refilling the prescription could result in him losing his job and facing legal ramifications. If he is charged with falsifying refills, Jerry may be imprisoned and required to pay multiple fines. The knowledge of what is morally and ethically right might dissuade Jerry from choosing to refill the prescription. Society anticipates healthcare professionals to follow a particular moral and ethical code of behavior. Going against this code by doing something he knows is wrong would bring about various consequences for Jerry, with little or no advantages.

Jerry may believe that he should order a refill for other reasons, such as the patient claiming to be a friend of the doctor. This could make Jerry think that he needs to please his employer by ordering the refill. Additionally, Jerry might feel a sense of empowerment from being asked to do something beyond his qualifications, which could influence his decision to order the refill. Jerry may also attempt to justify his decision by believing that he is helping someone in need. In order to make an ethical decision, Jerry may employ various methods.

These are the utilitarian method, the rights method, the common-good method, the justice method, and the virtue method (Velasquez & Andre, 2010). Jerry may perceive that reordering the prescription could have more negative consequences than benefits. The rights method reminds Jerry not to show favoritism towards this patient simply because they claim to be friends with the doctor. However, the common-good and rights methods do not directly apply to Jerry's situation.

The justice method can assist Jerry in realizing that it wouldn't be unjust

if he tells the patient that he cannot order the refill. Jerry should utilize the virtue method to acknowledge that asking for the prescription refill would be wrong. He should question whether it would be ethical or virtuous to order the refill. Since it is unethical, he should opt to decline the patient's request. In conclusion, being a healthcare professional involves making ethical and lawful decisions at the same time. Failing to comply with the law can have severe consequences. Nevertheless, it is always important to make ethical decisions based on sound moral judgment.

References Cornell University Law School (1993), Fremgen, B. F. (2009), Velasquez, M. ; Andre, C. (2010), and University Health Care (2008) are all sources referenced in this text.