Develop a case study related to an ethical and/or legal issue within the context of real or simulated moral problems arising from practice in the health professions. An example of a case study appears below. After developing the case study, use the following framework as a guide toward ethical reasoning and decision-making for resolution of the dilemma:

1. Identify the problem or issue presented in the situation.
2. Identify the individuals and the role of the health care practitioner(s) involved in the dilemma.
3. Identify and discuss the ethical principle(s) or rule(s) that apply.
4. Identify the options you have in reaching a decision.
5. Discuss the implications and/or consequences of these options.
6. Identify who should make the decision and justify your answer.
7. State your position in this case study and identify which decision you would make. Justify your answer.
8. Identify the possible outcome(s) which may result from your decision.

Format

The body of the paper shall be 5-7 pages in length, double-spaced, typed, and referenced. (Please use 12 point font). The formatting style as outlined in the "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association" (APA) is the preferred formatting style.  The paper will consist of the following: cover page; case study; body of the text to include the 8 items listed above; and reference page (if needed). The cover page and reference page are not to be counted as part of the 5-7 pages of the body of the paper. The statement of the case and the discussion toward ethical reasoning and decision making will comprise the 5-7 pages of the body of the paper.

Submission of Paper

Due Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 at 4:00 PM

Submission instructions: Papers are to be submitted to Dr. Glacken by 4:00 PM on Thursday, April 16, 1998. Papers submitted after the deadline will lose 5 points for each day late. It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that the instructor has received the paper, regardless of how the paper is being submitted. If the paper is electronically submitted, the student is responsible for checking with the instructor prior to the deadline to be certain the paper has been received in full.

Example of a Case Study

Below is an example of a developed case study. This is only the first part of your paper worth 20 points. Once you have developed your own case study, use the framework above as a guide for ethical reasoning and decision-making for resolution of the dilemma to complete the rest of your paper. Do not use this case study for your paper.

Mike Bauer is a registered medical technologist employed as a supervisor in a privately-owned independent laboratory in the Northeast. In order to qualify as a supervisor under Medicare and state regulations, six years of experience post baccalaureate degree is required. A qualified supervisor must be present in the laboratory while work is being performed. Mike has been working as a technologist since his graduation from college in 1980. He is highly qualified and meets all the requirements for a supervisory position.

Recently Mike's wife, Linda, became seriously ill and was hospitalized for two weeks. Although Linda was covered under Mike's medical insurance benefits, he still was responsible for paying 80% of the bill. Mike and Linda also have 3 children between the ages of 5 and 9. Linda's illness has placed a financial strain on the family's budget.

While at work one day, Mike receives a telephone call from Walt Andrews, the director of another independent laboratory in a neighboring community. It seems Walt is in need of a chemistry supervisor and is being required to hire one by Medicare or else face suspension of Medicare reimbursement privileges.  If a laboratory is not Medicare approved, it cannot service Medicare or Medicaid patients. The laboratory director, however, feels he is overstaffed and does not want to hire another person, especially a full-time supervisor whose salary requirements are higher that a bench technologist's salary. Walt has interviewed several prospective candidates for the position but their salary demands were too high. He offers Mike the position "in name only." In other words, Mike's name would appear as supervisor on the state and federal records but Mike would not have to be physically present in Walt's laboratory while work was being performed. Also, Mike would not have a voice in any procedural or technical matters.

Walt tries to persuade Mike by offering him monetary compensation for use of Mike's name and title.  Walt says, "Mike, everyone is doing this today, even pathologists.  There's nothing wrong with it.  You know I run a good laboratory so there is nothing to worry about."

The monetary sum is very appealing to Mike since it would greatly alleviate his financial burdens at home.  However he does not feel comfortable about certain aspects of the deal.  He tells Walt, "Well, I don't know Walt. I'm not crazy about sending out results for which I am legally responsible and for which I have no control over reviewing. I'm not saying I won't do it though.  Let me think about it some more and I'll give you a call by the end of the week."

Grading Criteria

The grading of the paper will be distributed as follows:

• Development of the case study (20 points)
• Identification of problem or issue (5 points)
• Identification of individuals and health care practitioner(s) involved (5 points)
• Discussion of ethical principle(s) or rule(s) (10 points)
• Identification of options (10 points)
• Discussion of implications and/or consequences of options (10 points)
• Identification of the decision-maker (5 points)
• Statement and justication of your position (10 points)
• Identification of possible outcomes (10 points)
• Length of paper (2 points)
• Double spaced & typed (2 points)
• Cover page (2 points)
• Appropriate use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling (5 points)
• Transition of ideas (2 points)
• Use of appropriate format (2 points)

Return to Syllabus