Introduction
Social networks have become a part of modern human life. Many hours in front of the monitor screen are not uncommon for those used to actively communicating with virtual friends, sharing their news, statuses, and photos in real time. Medical students, doctors, and nurses are no exception. The Internet enables medical students and physicians to communicate and share information that reaches millions of people quickly and easily. Social networking technologies and other similar features of the Internet can allow physicians to express their personal opinions, provide their professional online presence, foster collegiality in the industry, and provide opportunities to popularize ideas. Social media, blogs, and other forms of online communication also create new challenges in the patient-physician relationship (Brass & Borgatti, 2020). In the case study I reviewed, a hospital medic was fired for calling children “little Satans.” To some people, this reason for dismissal may seem insignificant. However, in this situation, the doctor did violate his profession’s moral and ethical aspects, namely his neutral and impersonal attitude toward his patients.
To safeguard a healthcare provider from being fired for violating the ethical standards and social policies of a hospital, decrees must be issued that spell out all these standards. All physicians should be aware of these norms and be informed of what awaits them as a result of their noncompliance. If I were making a social media policy for physicians, I would spell out the following rules. First, physicians should be aware of patient privacy standards that should be upheld in all environments, including online. In addition, they should refrain from posting identifiable patient information online. The second rule would be that when using the Internet and having a social media presence, physicians should use privacy settings that protect personal information and content as much as possible. However, it should be understood that privacy settings do not provide a complete guarantee that content posted online will have such protection at all times. Thus, physicians should regularly monitor their online presence to ensure that the professional information they post on their sites or content posted about them by others is accurate and appropriate.
Third, if physicians communicate with patients online, they must maintain appropriate patient-physician boundaries according to professional, ethical standards that would be appropriate in any other context. Physicians should consider separating personal and professional content when posting online to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. When physicians see content published by colleagues that appears unprofessional, they should be responsible for bringing that content to the attention of the individual, who may delete it or take other appropriate action. If the published information significantly violates professional and ethical standards and the individual fails to take appropriate action to resolve the situation, the physician should report it to the relevant authorities. Summarizing all these rules, it is worth remembering that physicians should recognize that online actions and published content may negatively impact their reputation among patients and colleagues. This can have implications for their medical careers and can also undermine public confidence in the medical profession.
Legal and Ethical Liabilities
In the case described, where the physician violated the ethical considerations of the institution by speaking inappropriately about the children, both the institution and the physician should bear the ethical and legal liabilities. Regarding legal obligations, one should do as the present administrative code of the country prescribes. There are no criminal penalties for online slurs in the U.S. However, the doctor who wrote the post may be fined and required to remove it at the administrative level. The hospital where the doctor worked will probably not incur any administrative liability. There are far more ethical issues involved because calling children “little Satans” is considered by many people to be an insult. Indeed, there will be those who will defend the physician by saying that he has expressed personal opinions that are not work-related, but most will not support this view. In today’s world, a person’s job is closely tied to his or her public behavior, including posts on social media (Barnsley, 2020). Consequently, many may decide that a doctor’s negative attitude toward children affects his attitude toward all other patients.
In such a situation, both the physician and the medical establishment bear a specific rehearsal loss and must take ethical steps to minimize the damage. A public apology should be made to anyone who may have been offended by his harsh remarks on the doctor’s part. This should be a message explaining his motivation for the statement. He should also convey to the public that he in no way meant to insult any of his patients directly. Even in a situation where the physician believes they are entirely right about the situation, an apology will not harm their reputation but instead will help restore it. In such a situation, one should not remain silent and wait for the problem to subside, as a society rarely forgets public blunders. Another ethical obligation is for the physician to acknowledge the unacceptability of his or her statement fully.
This is necessary that people understand that they are aware of their guilt. In addition, it is worth communicating what measures the doctor will take to ensure that such a situation does not occur again. For example, he may be more vigilant about his public statements on social media. The hospital should also apologize for its employee’s behavior. It is also essential to make clear the institution’s position regarding the unacceptability of such behavior. It is also necessary to state what action has been taken against the employee who violated the hospital’s ethical standards. A letter of dismissal and an educational discussion with the staff member regarding the health care provider’s ethical behavior on the Internet should be reported. The hospital should also establish a training program for its employees to improve ethics education. This is necessary to avoid a repeat of this situation and reassure clients that the hospital is entirely ethical. This ethical commitment will help the hospital and the employee minimize the reputational cost and assure the public that they are aware of their guilt. In this way, the situation can be socially handled correctly.
The Right of Employers to View Personal Social Networks
I believe that a potential employer, college principal, or any other person responsible for selecting candidates has no right to access my social media accounts. I believe that any selection should be based solely on the professional qualities required of a candidate for a particular position. Hobbies, hobbies, political views, race, and gender should in no way affect a candidate’s ability to be selected (Sison et al., 2018). I would like to be hired based on what I have to offer the company as a professional, not my social media posts. A person can be a brutal biker who makes harsh remarks about real political power but still be a great doctor. Patients in this case also care more about the professional qualifications of the medical employee than about their statements on social networks about the current government. The same is true of college students. A teenager can be capable and dedicated to science and at the same time disagree with the social structure of the state or the new civil laws.
I find the situation of not admitting ten students to college unacceptable and a gross violation of students’ boundaries by the admissions committee. Everyone has the right to privacy and subjective opinion under the constitution of a democratic state. That personal opinion should not affect the host committee’s perception of their professional and academic accomplishments. I would also like to talk about the distinction between work and personal life in this context. The statutes of various public and private institutions, including poor institutions, always spell out clear rules for conduct and speech during working hours. People there have to limit their freedom of action for a long time and obey the established rules. Outside of work or school hours, employees or students are obliged to be able to express themselves in the way they choose. In other words, their freedom of action and expression should not be restricted in any way during personal time.
On the other hand, there is the crucial aspect that expressions and hobbies must not conflict with the values of the workplace or school. If such a conflict arises, it can cause extensive reputational damage to the institution as well as to the subject. This could be the motivation for the host committee’s viewing of social media, but it has no right to judge solely based on online behavior. As a last resort, the person can be asked to remove or rephrase the controversial content and explain their motivation for publishing such statements or actions. If the candidate is suitable for the position according to other parameters, it is irrational to refuse them based on social networks. After all, that is how one can lose a skilled professional who could have made a scientific breakthrough in the industry. By evaluating solely based on social networks, the employer or the admissions committee views the situation as one-sided and subjective because there is no regulation on the degree of the unacceptability of statements.
The selection committee itself determines the correctness or incorrectness of the message, thereby making a subjective assessment and jeopardizing the honest reputation of the institution. After all, any selection rounds should be made solely objectively, excluding the personal preferences of the commission. To summarize, I find it unacceptable to make selection decisions based on social networks, and I would not want the decision-maker to have access to them. My opinion is based on the right to privacy, personal life, and freedom of expression. In addition, I believe that evaluating a person based on their social networks is highly subjective, which should be unacceptable to serious organizations and educational institutions.
References
Barnsley, J. H. (2020). The social reality of ethics: The comparative analysis of moral codes. Routledge. Web.
Brass, D. J., & Borgatti, S. P. (2019). Social networks at work. Routledge. Web.
Sison, A.J.G., Ferrero, I., & Guitián, G. (Eds.). (2018). Business ethics: A virtue ethics and common good approach. Routledge. Web.