Case Analysis
Business Ethics and Social Responsibility in Healthcare
Business Ethics refers to standards and principles of conduct in an organization that is acceptable to the society. According to Brandao et al. (2013), business ethics is contained in the aspect of social responsibility of an organization. Social responsibility concerns with the involvement of an organization in social problems facing the society. Moreover, it concerns with the effect of an organization on the society. This section of the paper seeks to evaluate how business ethics and social responsibility applies to health care settings.
The first aspect that business ethics and social responsibility apply to healthcare is that of service delivery. Brandao et al. (2013) explains that the delivery of healthcare services are expected to meet universal ethical principles as a way of respecting human beings and their rights. The aspect of service delivery is broad and refers to the implementation of mechanisms to assist healthcare stakeholders. Such mechanisms involve such as the provision of assistance services to physically challenged patients, supporting and initiating programs on solidarity and social well-being.
Social responsibility is also essential in healthcare to promote activities that aim to protect and improve the well-being of the people (Brandao et al., 2013 ). For instance, healthcare should handle with care materials such as toxic and poisonous substances that may cause harm to people. Moreover, healthcare should be involved in environmental protection and policy formulation relating to patients or their groups such as in their representation in national matters and resource allocation. Moreover, healthcare marketing is also required to ensure social responsibility. According to Buchbinder and Shanks (2012), healthcare should ensure that their marketing models are ethical. Healthcare should not market products that cause harm or induce demand for services that are unnecessary.
Case Brief
Case: Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974)
Plaintiff: Kelly Niles
Defendants: Mt. Zion Hospital, San Rafael City School District, Dr. David Haskins
and City of San Rafael
Cross-Complainants: San Rafael City School District and City of San Rafael
Appellants: Dr. David Haskins and Mt. Zion Hospital
Appellee: Kelly Niles, San Rafael City School District and City of San Rafael
Case History:
During the trial, the plaintiff won at the trial with the awarding of $4,025,000 against the defendants. Cross-complainants also won the judgment of only $25,000 as their responsibility from the total award.
Facts:
An eleven-year-old boy, Kelly, was incapacitated due to internal bleeding resulting from a fracture after his denial to admission in Mt. Zion Hospital. Dr. Haskins failed to admit Kelly despite revealing the required symptoms for admission, offered wrong instructions to his father and failed to provide a sheet listing as the routine indicates. The trial court ruled on $4,025,000 against Mt. Zion Hospital, City of San Rafael, Dr. Haskins, and the San Rafael City School District. Dr. Haskins and Mt. Zion appealed to the Court of Appeal of California.
Issues
Plaintiff’s theory:
Kelly was not admitted despite revealing symptoms necessitating admission as indicated in a sheet listing. Dr. Haskins did not examine Kelly or his chart to determine his medical condition despite earlier decisions by nurses to admit him (Niles v. City of San Rafael, 1974). Moreover, Kelly’s father was not provided with a sheet listing and was given wrong instructions about observing him.
Defendant’s theory:
The public entities argued that they did not have control of the appellant. On the other hand, the appellants argued that Kelly injury would have resulted in death if they did not provide treatment and hence the only negligence was the lack of proper supervision as is the case for the public entities.
Legal Issue:
Did Kelly suffer harm due to the negligence of the defendants?
Holding
The court ruled that Kelly suffered personal harm due to the defendants’ tortuous acts. The case facts indicated a proximate cause of Kelly incapacitated (Niles v. City of San Rafael, 1974).
Case Summary
Kelly Niles, who was 11-years old, sustained a skull fracture while playing in a recreational program jointly operated by San Rafael City School District and the City of San Rafael. The fracture caused tearing off an artery causing internal bleeding between the dura and the skull resulting in clotting. Upon being taken to Mt. Zion Hospital, Kelly was examined by two nurses who concurred that he should be admitted. However, Kelly was not admitted since a private physician was not treating him and the matter being passed on to Dr. Haskins, who was the director of out-patient. Dr. Haskins did not examine Kelly or the medical details taken during his examination by the nurses and went forth declining him admission on the basis that his father was responsible. Moreover, the doctor did not provide Kelly’s father with sheet listing, which is a requirement in regular routines. Kelly’s condition worsened and underwent delayed surgery that left him totally disabled.
References
Brandão, C., Rego, G., Duarte, I., & Nunes, R. (2013). Social responsibility: a new paradigm of hospital governance?. Health Care Analysis, 21(4), 390-402.
Buchbinder, S. B., & Shanks, N. H. (2012). Introduction to health care management. Burlington, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Niles v. City of San Rafael, 42 CA3d 230 (CA. 1974)
