Ethics Case Study
January 13, 2014
Holly Martinez de Andino
Ethics Case Study
Ethics refers to the values of manners in which a person finds out the finest way of action to take when facing a choice. Ethical impasses are a regular part of daily living; possessing a technique for making ethical choices is fundamental for communal acceptance. In this article, the topic to study is a situation inside a doctor’s workplace to ...view middle of the document...
The patient makes certain that he is using Valium (Diazepam) as an antidepressant, which is not the general use for this medication. Valium is an anti-anxiety drug and classified as a programmed IV controlled dangerous substance (CDS), which requires a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) authorization to prescribe. This medicine timetable has a limitation of five restocks within every six-month phase (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2010). Valium is not a medicine that one restocks with no evaluating the patient’s graph and getting correct permission. An appeal to restock a medicine refill for instance one used each day to manage high blood pressure would be fewer doubt and Jerry might sense more right to restock it as it is essential to sustain the patient’s fitness. Nonetheless, Jerry does not have lawful approval to call in any restocks with no a doctor’s order or working as a workplace helper.
“The principle of respondent advanced is a general-law policy that states an owner is responsible for actions carried out by a worker when the actions take place inside the range of service” (Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary, 2011). If Jerry was to call in the restock for the patient in this situation and the patient go through a bad reaction, Jerry would not have safety from court case under the policy. In this case, Jerry would be acting ahead of the range of the responsibilities hand over to him, hence; his owner might not be legally responsible, but eventually the court would have to make that judgment.
Jerry can tackle this problem in a couple of ways with no need of resulting in immoral activities. The patient is asking a restock of medicine at once; the demand itself is impractical. Patients must not look forward to get a prescription called in at once when asked for. Jerry must clarify the patient that he should call in restocks no less than a day before required, to allow time for the doctor to make an order and the pharmacy to arrange it. Nearly all workplaces have a rule on prescription restocks; Jerry should pass on to this rule when talking to the patient. Jerry could also try to contact the doctor by phone and ask if he will call in the fill up for the patient himself.
To perform the patient’s appeal likely to be a abuse of what is lawful and proper. By law, Jerry is restricted from satisfying the demand of the patient; he does not have an approval from the doctor and is working as a workplace associate in this case. Morally, to fill up the medicine would be breaking the faith of the doctor who assigned his practice to Jerry while he is gone from the workplace, and he would be illegally working...