Introductory Overview
Karen, a professional and experienced CPA with an MBA, was appointed as the CEO of Community Hospital, a smaller hospital with a track record that may need improvement. Karen was briefed on a case that the hospital was defending shortly after starting her new job. The complaint was filed by the family of Tom Beach, a patient who died after a heart attack at the Community Hospital’s emergency room.
The legal team was confident they could defeat the accusations, but Karen felt driven to do something unconventional (De George 39). She sought to address the surviving family’s loss in a way that recognized and honored their loss and the subsequent needs (De George 87). Additionally, she wanted to use the case as a catalyst to address systemic problems at the Community Hospital and avoid similar incidents in the future.
The Action/Decision
Karen’s determination to take action beyond the case’s legal ramifications reflects her values and beliefs. While the lawsuit represents an external danger to the hospital, she sees it as a chance to strengthen the institution’s policies and prevent such situations in the future (De George, 67). Karen’s empathy for the dead patient’s family is vital in her decision-making process. She wants to do the right thing legally, morally, and ethically (De George 44).
However, Karen’s willingness to act on her empathy may collide with the legal guidance she is receiving from the hospital’s legal staff. The legal team is concentrating on defending the hospital against claims made by the dead patient’s relatives and limiting any potential legal liabilities. They may see Karen’s actions outside of their legal strategy as a threat to the hospital’s defense.
Karen must carefully weigh the risks and rewards of going beyond the legal defense plan. She must balance the potential impact on the hospital’s image, legal repercussions, and the impact on the deceased patient’s family. At the same time, she must examine the hospital’s mission and goals and how taking action that acknowledges the family’s loss and prevents similar incidents resonates with those principles (De George67).
How she balances these opposing variables will ultimately determine Karen’s decision. She may choose to heed the legal team’s advice and concentrate entirely on the legal defense plan or take action beyond that approach. If she opts for the latter, she must carefully evaluate the potential ramifications of her actions and devise a strategy that balances the demands of all parties concerned.
What Is at Stake
The problem is far more complicated than choosing between two solutions. The family of Tom Beach, who has experienced a sad loss and is seeking justice, is at the center of this problem. Their entire future is at stake because they have lost a loved one and are suing for wrongful death compensation (De George 55).
On the other side, Community Hospital’s image and financial viability are at stake. The hospital is responsible for ensuring its patients are safe and given the best possible treatment. The hospital’s reputation and economic viability will be jeopardized if the case is successful (De George 102). This might lead to a loss of community trust, affecting the hospital’s capacity to offer quality treatment to future patients.
In addition to the hospital and the family’s interests, Karen’s reputation and professional development are jeopardized. She may harm her reputation and risk her future employment if she makes an incorrect judgment (De George 67). Her choice will affect her personally and the hospital’s legal staff, who are counting on her to make the correct decision (De George 67).
As a result, the stakes are enormous, and Karen’s choice will have far-reaching ramifications. Before taking action, Karen must carefully analyze her alternatives and examine all relevant considerations. She must be compassionate while completing her legal commitments and defending the hospital’s interests. Karen must ultimately make a fair and reasonable conclusion to all parties concerned.
Main Arguments Against This Course of Action
If they are inappropriate, Karen’s actions could compromise the hospital’s defense in the case. Any attempt to reach a settlement or apologize without seeking legal counsel might be considered an admission of guilt and used against the institution in court. This would jeopardize the hospital’s image and financial viability even further.
Furthermore, Karen’s actions may have an impact on her career (De George, 67). Acting on her empathy and making judgments without consulting the legal team might be interpreted as lacking determination and professionalism. If her actions jeopardize the hospital’s position in the lawsuit, she may be held accountable and suffer disciplinary action, which may influence her future job chances.
It is also worth noting that Karen’s willingness to act on her empathy and do what she feels is right may be interpreted as a conflict of interest. Her responsibility as a hospital representative is to preserve the hospital’s interests rather than the family’s. She may be considered breaking her professional duties if she takes activities that benefit the family’s interests (De George 74).
Ultimately, the legal team’s case against Karen for acting outside the legal process is based on reasonable considerations. Karen’s irresponsible conduct might jeopardize the hospital’s position in the case and have a detrimental influence on her career. Furthermore, her acts might be interpreted as a conflict of interest, further complicating the case.
Reasons and Rationalizations That Must Be Addressed
Karen’s compassion and desire to do the right thing must be weighed against her responsibilities to the hospital and its legal staff. Her emotional attachment to Tom Beach’s family might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, threatening her job as a hospital administrator (De George 74). Karen must also be mindful of the potential implications of acting in ways that are outside the boundaries of her employment. Any activities that hinder the legal process may be interpreted as an obstruction of justice, which might have dire ramifications for both Karen and the hospital.
Another critical factor to examine is the hospital’s reputation and financial soundness. Any errors in managing the litigation might result in unfavorable publicity, undermining the hospital’s ability to recruit and keep patients as well as its economic viability. Karen must also consider the legal team’s advice to concentrate on the legal element of causation.
While her impulse to act out of empathy is understandable, the hospital’s defense mustn’t be put at risk in any way. Karen must ultimately confront these reasons and rationalizations by carefully assessing the potential implications of her actions and balancing her desire to do the right thing with her responsibility to the hospital and its legal team (De George 77). She must behave ethically and within the parameters of her employment as a hospital administrator. This may entail collaborating closely with the legal team to defend the hospital’s position in the litigation while identifying methods to comfort Tom Beach’s family and prevent such incidents.
Powerful & Persuasive Responses
Karen may still acknowledge the family’s sorrow while addressing the legal team’s concerns without risking the hospital’s defense. Karen can discover suitable routes for delivering assistance and managing the family’s needs by working with legal counsel, such as offering condolences, providing options for bereavement therapy, or referring them to relevant legal services. She may demonstrate that the hospital accepts responsibility for what has occurred and cares about the family’s well-being.
Furthermore, avoiding such incidents in the future is critical to maintaining the hospital’s commitment to patient safety. Karen can find areas for improvement and work with appropriate departments to create changes that promote patient safety and well-being by collecting data on the hospital’s protocols and processes (De George 94). This helps the hospital’s reputation and guarantees that future patients receive the best treatment possible. Karen must ensure that any measures she takes are within the confines of ethical and legal norms to manage the possible threats to her career and reputation.
Conclusion
Karen is confronted with a challenging ethical quandary after a patient’s death at Community Hospital. She wants to do the right thing for her family, the hospital, and the community, but she must negotiate the legal system and guarantee that her acts are ethical and lawful. Karen’s decision might have far-reaching effects for all parties concerned, so she must carefully weigh the risks and rewards of her options. Her reaction will ultimately reflect her character and devotion to the well-being of others.
Work Cited
De George, Richard T. “Theological Ethics and Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 5, no. 6, 2018, pp. 421–32, Web.