MGT4028 Ethics and Business : Statement of Resolution

The report deals ethical situation whereby a dog owner violated, the norms of his profession and carried out an experimental treatment process bent on the treatment of a rare blood disease in a dog. The risk undertaken by the doctor was a violation of ethics .The dog owner was not informed of the situation and paying no heed to his order of proceeding; the doctor proceeded, violating certain ethical values. The solution have been given, by which the ethical violation can be addressed and the subsequent explanation that justifies the act. The solution, though not absolute, it has a way of addressing the current situation (Cochrane, 2012).

1. Case Briefing:

The case involves a small scenario between a dog owner and a doctor, who variably did an interaction with the dog owner, whose dog was sick. Contracted with a rare blood disease, the dog put on request by the dog owner to be put on euthanasia but the doctor went ahead with a rare treatment that could have caused bodily harm to the dog. The bodily harm was in the form of an unbearable pain that could have caused problem to the dog. The case here is concerned with an ethical violation that was done by the doctor on his part not to inform the dog owner and subsequently carrying on a risky treatment (Crockett, 2013).

2. Ethical Issue Statement:

The ethical issue in question here is negligence on the part of the veterinarian to abide by the specific request made to him, from the owner of the dog, Sandy. It was important from the part of the doctor to align to the request of the owner, who had specifically requested him not to proceed with the treatment, which had all the factors to cause extreme harm to the dog health wise. The treatment as suggested by Dr. Cee was considerably expensive in nexus with a period of extended length and bodily damages and pain for the dog. It is at this point that the owner instructed the doctor not to proceed ahead with the treatment and apply euthanasia. The doctor acted beyond his abilities and started his treatment of the dog, which was an automatic breach in duty, whereby a risk taken by the doctor could have resulted in the unnecessary pain, predicted by the doctor (Custance and Mayer, 2012). Understanding concern is very important for any professional, in this case, even though the dog survived, taking the treatment well but a foreseeable pain could have made the life of the dog critical, and the treatment was ninety five percent ineffective in the laboratories, thus making it even more riskier. The ethical issue instantly attracted the case when the doctor found out a mistake in the treatment process and tried to experiment the new rectified process on the dog without informing the owner, who was quite attached to the dog. Failure to receive consent from the dog’s owner on the part of the doctor is a moral ethics that is extremely important to observe. The doctor though succeeded in restoring the dog to its former self but the risk remained high, and the failure was a brutality on the part of the dog (Kearsley-Fleet et al., 2013).

3. A Possible Solution:

 A possible solution that remained at disposal was an effort on the part of the doctor to inform the owner about the risk he was about to undertake, the connection of the dog with owner was extremely attachable. The connection was the instrument of use for the doctor; a little convincing had the proper potential to evoke the required will from the owner to allow him to proceed with the rectified experiment. Death was a sure case for the dog, and under these dire-strait circumstances, the owner stood at a sure chance of accepting any chances of gripping away the dog from the jaws of death. Keeping the matter entirely secretive was an unethical case from the part of the doctor, who risked the treatment without informing the owner. Simple information, touching the affections of the dog owner cumulated with the offer of a free treatment, was probably the best solution in this case scenario. The doctor was not much at fault in this case as he was able to restore the condition of the dog but a moral duty to inform was essential in this regard. The dog though recovered but the pain of the process was a risk hence feeding information was essential (Rock and Degeling, 2015)

4. An Analysis:

The fact in issue of the cases clearly lays out the following things:

The case is generally concentrated on a certain situation of where a doctor experimented with a new and rectified system on a dog without prior approval of the dog owner, thereby violating his ethical prospective of informing the dog owner about the entire process. The facts clearly pointed out of an unprecedented risk taken by the doctor to cure the doctor failure of which would result in a painful experience for the dog, in turn affecting the mental situation of the dog owner. The non-informing part thus makes it an ethical issue for the doctor.

The principles of ethics can act as a necessary tool to effectively explain the facets of the case on the ethical point of view, with a small highlight on the pros and cons of the situation in case (Gray & Schein,(2012).

Utilitarianism: The theory mainly explains that actions are determined correct or wrong, based on the final effects of the actions. Pinpointing towards a more proper approach, the rule Utilitarianism applies in the case. The theory points out firstly that an act  is morally correct if it complies with a moral code, the doctor in this case scenario did the treatment for his ownbenefit, in an effort to prove that the method he was using justified the system thus an experiment based on the self gain, never stands on a morally justified ground. The rule method thus puts the doctor on difficult grounds where he neglected a basic ethical aspect on his part of not informing or even trying to convince the dog owner about the process he was about to apply upon the dog.

The morality would have been in this case to inform the dog owner about the treatment

be carried out on the dog to rid him of the disease, the success was positive, whereby the dog was recovered back to its former self. Justifying a point that if the doctor on informing the owner, there was a strong possibility that the dog owner would have walked out on the suggestion, in fear of the harm that would affect the dog physically. The question comes to if in reality the dog would have suffered with an experimental failure. The doctor did satisfy the utility factor but the doctor had ethically violated the simple conduct of conveying the matter to the dog owner, whereby his noble work comes into question. Explanation based on this theory puts a mixed viewpoint from the side of the doctor. It would have been much more satisfying if the doctor’s conveyed viewpoint was accepted by the owner and the continuation of the treatment followed (Kasperbauer, 2015).

Deontological ethics: This ethical system can explain the situation a little further, whereby the system explores the possibility of validating the morality of an action on the grounds of the based rule procedure. In the said case, the rules were simple, whereby the act would have been valid if there was information and an approval on the part of the doctor and the owner, then the morality of this principle would have been satisfied. The risk taken by the doctor in this case without prior approval invalidates the simple basis of the principle whereby he broke the most simple but a very important rule in the form of trust break puts the principle on valid grounds in the thick of things (Scarpi, 2012).

There is a single point solution allotted, though another solution in this case also justifies the thing the doctor had done. Going ahead with the experiment, facilitated the survival of the dog that had a positive effect on the mind of the owner. Explaining the need of risky and certain drastic actions that needs following to bring out a separate solution to the entire situation. In the first solution, mere information to the owner clearly wipes off the possibility of any ethical breach on the part of the doctor, thus justifying the answer properly (Jamnik, 2012). The solution also has a negative effect as well, which definitely highlights another fact where the dog’s life could have been spared, because of a request of euthanasia that was directed to be carried out by the owner. In this case, the fear of the unbarring pain would have prompted the back out from surrendering to the idea of the experiment, ultimately ending the dog’s life. The solution thus has a problem as well as an advantage. A mild reference to the solution, it can be derived that a simple convincing would have sufficed, and the question of breaking his ethics in the case was not required at all (Magalhães-Sant'Ana, 2014).  

Statement of Resolution:

The statement variably determines the solution that can be meted out to the solving of this ethical issue in question. The solution being simple, in the form of a proper information that could have been fed to the dog owner, by far eliminating the possibility of an ethical case against the doctor. This by far is the most logical explanation that can be conjured up in the case. A simple persuasion is enough to convince an emotionally driven person into submission. The treatment was though successful but it was against the wish of the owner, making it a riskier affair with regards to the bodily pain that could have been inflicted upon the creature. In this case only the solution given sustains (Piazza and Landy, 2013).

Conclusion:

The reasonable derivation drawn from the report includes a method by which an ethical problem can be resolved, the prescription of a proper method, which could have avoided the crisis, putting an emphasis on the solution, which prescribes an effective method of solving the problem. It is important for the doctor to inform the dog owner about the consequences attached for not abiding by the ethical rules; the report also gives a proper solution to the problem that is encountered by the doctor and the patient. 

Reference:

Cochrane, A. (2012). Animal rights without liberation: Applied ethics and human obligations. Columbia University Press

Crockett, M. J. (2013). Models of morality. Trends in cognitive sciences, 17(8), 363-366.

Custance, D., & Mayer, J. (2012). Empathic-like responding by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) to distress in humans: an exploratory study. Animal cognition, 1-9.

Gray, K., & Schein, C. (2012). Two minds vs. two philosophies: Mind perception defines morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1-19.

Jamnik, A. (2012). Ethics and economics: How can they be integrated into good business decision-making? An Eastern European perspective. Journal of International Business Ethics, 5(1), 18.

Kasperbauer, T. J. (2015). Rejecting empathy for animal ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18(4), 817.

Kearsley-Fleet, L., O’neill, D. G., Volk, H. A., Church, D. B., & Brodbelt, D. C. (2013). Prevalence and risk factors for canine epilepsy of unknown origin in the UK. Vet Rec, 172(13), 338.

Magalhães-Sant'Ana, M. (2014). Ethics teaching in European veterinary schools: a qualitative case study. Vet Rec, 175(23), 592-7.

Piazza, J., & Landy, J. F. (2013). " Lean not on your own understanding": Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(6), 639.

Rock, M. J., & Degeling, C. (2015). Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 61-67.

Rock, M., & Degeling, C. (2013). Public health ethics and a status for pets as person-things: revisiting the place of animals in urbanized societies.

Scarpi, D. (2012). Work and fun on the internet: the effects of utilitarianism and hedonism online. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(1), 53-67.