Workplace ethics refers to a set of moral standards that when followed leads to the production of high-quality work behavior in a given profession. It in-cooperates values, rational and principles that when followed prioritizes ones job and enhances their output. Workplace ethics comes in handy in resolving workplace dilemmas. Whereas employees find themselves at crossroads while making individual decisions at work, workplace ethics enables them to analyze the possible effect their choice will have on themselves, the organization and the stakeholders. Hence, validating or disapproving their action. This paper seeks to examine one such situation experienced by Pam Hays a respiratory therapist at Westridge Hospital. Furthermore, it presents the best decisions and justification for the chosen choice.
Pam is in a dilemma on whether to attend to Mr. Wright first or the boy with cystic fibrosis. Mr. Wright’s case presents Pam under direct responsibility since she was assigned to administer the prescribed medication at a stipulated time. It shows a sense of deserving justice. Failure to deliver the drug on time may escalate to being captured in cases of late drug administration to the patient and inconveniencing Mrs. Wright. Also, it will end up harming both the hospital reputation and Mrs. Wright. Choosing to prioritize Mr. Wright upholds the principle of Justice and the principle of nonmaleficence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, the boy's mother is open to discussion since she is still at the hospital. She can get an explanation of how soon her case can be handled bearing in mind her time constraints. The reason saves infringement of the principle of beneficence which obligates people to bring about good in their actions. Secondly, she is not in a position to know precisely how long Pam will take to resolve Mr. Wright's case meaning nondisclosure of her second priority may not make her feel discriminated. It upholds the principle of respect for autonomy which recognizes her need for urgency as mature decision worth respecting.
In conclusion, the best judgment for Pam is to attend to Mr. Wright first. It will grant him justice and save both the Hospital and Mrs. Wright from harm. Attending to the boy with cystic fibrosis after taking necessary measures, uphold the principle of beneficence and respect for autonomy. The whole process follows a three-step procedure of identifying the ethical dilemma, finding an alternative and using ethical reasoning to establish the necessary action.
