Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Public service ethics demand a high standard of conduct, even in privately held organizations providing essential services like healthcare. The core principle revolves around upholding public trust and ensuring decisions are made in the best interest of stakeholders, not personal gain. Conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, can erode this trust and compromise the integrity of the institution. This case presents a classic ethical dilemma for Sneha, a Senior Manager, where personal relationships intersect with professional responsibilities during a crucial procurement process. Her decision will not only impact the hospital but also her own reputation and the broader healthcare system's ethical standards.
Understanding the Ethical Dilemmas
Sneha faces a complex web of ethical challenges:
- Conflict of Interest: Her brother’s involvement creates a direct conflict of interest. While the hospital is privately owned, the principle of impartiality remains crucial, especially in procurement.
- Potential Bias: Her awareness of her brother’s financial difficulties introduces a potential bias towards favoring his company, even if it’s not the most advantageous option for the hospital.
- Transparency & Perception: Even if she believes she can be objective, the appearance of favoritism can damage her credibility and the hospital’s reputation.
- Duty to the Hospital: Sneha has a responsibility to ensure the hospital receives the best value for its investment, securing high-quality equipment at a reasonable price.
Sneha’s Course of Action
The most ethical course of action for Sneha is to recuse herself from the final decision-making process regarding her brother’s bid. This doesn’t mean excluding her brother from bidding, but rather removing herself from evaluating his proposal and influencing the outcome. Specifically, she should:
- Disclose the relationship: Fully disclose her relationship with the vendor to the hospital management and the procurement committee.
- Delegate Evaluation: Assign the evaluation of her brother’s bid to another senior member of the procurement committee.
- Maintain Oversight (Limited): She can continue to oversee the overall procurement process but must abstain from any direct involvement in assessing her brother’s bid.
- Document Everything: Maintain a detailed record of all disclosures and decisions made to demonstrate transparency.
Justifying the Chosen Course of Action
This course of action is justified by several ethical frameworks:
- Utilitarianism: Recusal maximizes overall well-being. Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety protects the hospital’s reputation, fosters trust with patients and stakeholders, and ensures the best possible equipment is procured, ultimately benefiting the greatest number of people.
- Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics): Sneha has a duty to act impartially and avoid conflicts of interest, regardless of the potential benefits to her brother. Her professional duty overrides personal loyalty.
- Virtue Ethics: Demonstrating integrity, honesty, and fairness are core virtues of a public servant (even in a private setting). Recusal exemplifies these virtues.
Sneha can justify her decision to the hospital management by emphasizing her commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards and protecting the hospital’s reputation. She can explain that while she trusts her brother’s company, her personal relationship creates a potential for bias, and recusal is the most responsible course of action.
Compromise of Medical Ethics and Vested Personal Interest
Medical ethics, particularly the principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (doing no harm), are compromised when personal interests influence procurement decisions. If Sneha were to favor her brother’s company without objective justification, it could lead to the hospital acquiring substandard equipment or paying inflated prices. This directly impacts patient care and potentially causes harm. The vested personal interest – her brother’s financial recovery – overshadows the primary ethical obligation to provide the best possible medical care. Furthermore, it undermines the principle of justice, as it creates an unfair advantage for one vendor over others.
Conclusion
Sneha’s situation highlights the importance of robust ethical frameworks and transparent processes in all organizations, even those privately owned. Prioritizing integrity and impartiality, even when faced with personal pressures, is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring responsible governance. Recusal, coupled with full disclosure, is the most ethical course of action, safeguarding the hospital’s reputation and, most importantly, the well-being of its patients. This case serves as a reminder that ethical leadership requires courage and a commitment to doing what is right, even when it is difficult.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.