Corporate Governance and Ethical Responsibility: An Analysis - Research Paper Example

Section/# Corporate Governance and Ethical Responsibility: An Analysis This brief analysis will seek to answer a series of questions concerning the case of Dr. DoRight; presented to this student as a means of providing the framework behind writing this response paper. As a means of answering the questions associated with the ethical and moral obligations, key shareholders, and means of interpretation with which the given case could be determined, this student will seek to weigh these factors both within the framework of the given case study as well as seeking to provide reference and allusions to the course material and readings that have assisted in providing answers and discussion with relation to the given case. Shareholders Firstly, with response to the key shareholders of the given case study, these can most easily be related in terms of patients, staff, vendors, and management. With relation to the patients and staff, these two shareholders are the most obvious ones with which the hospital president will come in contact with on a daily basis. However, beyond these shareholders, there are also those of the vendors with which the hospital necessarily does a healthy and continual level of business with. These vendors will be discussed at length further in the analysis as they exemplify a peculiar and dynamic shareholder within the level of seeking to ensure the hospital behaves in an ethically and morally expeditious manner. Finally, as with any level of position and/or responsibility – no matter how high, the president of the hospital is ultimately responsible not only to the staff and patients of the hospital he presides over but also to the board of trustees, regional compliance manager, executive committees, and a litany of other shareholders that define the very upper reaches of oversight for the president’s position. As with any listing of shareholders, the level to which the key interests of these parties coalesce is of course limited. With respect to the first group of shareholders that was listed above, the patients, one can quickly infer that this group of shareholders values the level, quality, and affordability of the healthcare provided by the hospital as their preeminent concern. Furthermore, this group is unique within the representation of the other groups that will be discussed as it is the only one that acts as that of the end consumer/customer. As such, this group is directly affected by any adjustment to the level, quality, or affordability that the health care exhibits. Secondarily, the next group of shareholders that have been mentioned are those of the staff that are employed by the hospital. These of course obviously include doctors and nurses as well as the full array of primary healthcare providers. However, this also includes the array of support staff, janitors, facility maintenance, HR departments, lab personnel, and pharmacists/technicians etc. Although it may be convenient for the reader/researcher to lump all of these individuals in with the “responsible” and/or “guilty” party with reference to the elevated level of patient deaths that have been occurring, the preceding analysis helps to point to the fact that this group itself is diverse and varied and thereby cannot be lumped together as a responsible entity for the patient losses that have been suffered. Moreover, the needs and wants of this particular group of shareholders are concentric upon retaining their position, whatever that might be, within the hospital, and ensuring that no disastrous revelations threaten the security that their livelihood provides. As such, the hospital staff have a strong vested interest in ensuring that no waves rock the boat so to speak. Although a vested interest does not necessarily correlate to an unethical action, it should nonetheless be noted by the reader that this vested interest is every bit as strong as any of those which will be or have been listed within this paper. Thirdly, the vendors themselves represent a powerful group of shareholders. As a member of the private business community in all of its various reflections, this group is indicative of a broad swath of firms and individuals who seek to derive a level of profit from the daily needs that a hospital necessarily espouses. Such a profit driven approach necessarily lends this group to seek to repress or ignore the threats that may exist to the end patient; however, this in and of itself cannot be outright assumed. As a means of seeking to provide a level of insurance to the ongoing business relationship that these vendors have with the hospital, they will likely seek to pressure key shareholders within the hospital leadership and staff to ensure that the current high level of patient deaths is either actively sought to be reduced or appropriately covered up as a means to continue the highly profitable business arrangement that these two co-dependent entities have with one another. A unique aspect of this is the fact that the level to which this group of shareholders will seek to pressure the hospital can reach a critical mass and can also have a rubber band effect. For instance, if a group of shareholders is aware that an unethical occurrence is taking place, they will be likely to voice this concern with the hospital due to the fact that they believe that it will be harmful to the mutually beneficial business relationship that they both share. However, if the ethical concern is so damning that revelation of it to the general public would likely destroy the reputation of the hospital and lead to a sizable reduction in the business potential that is represented therein, it is unlikely that this shareholder would press for ultimate revelation of the ethical issue due ot the fact that it will ultimately harm the bottom line of his/her business operations. In such a way, these shareholders may be willing to take on smaller ethical concerns and seek to correct them; however, trusting them to do the right thing in each and every situation is naive and short-sighted. Finally, the fourth group of shareholders, that of the ultimate directorship/management of the hospital, are also representative of a group that is ultimately the both complex. Due to the fact that this particular group of shareholders must seek to balance the needs of the hospital staff, the patients, the vendors, and the hospital president, the level to which this group can make informed decisions that are devoid of bias is most within question. This of course does not mean that an unbiased and ethical decision is impossible within the constraints of the given case study; rather, it merely means that this group has the most pressures acting upon it from all of the other shareholders that have thus far been mentioned. Conflict of Shareholders and Differentiation Between Internal and External Shareholders As a means of comparison, the key differences between levels of potential conflict that could exist between these shareholders that have thus far been mentioned, this ultimately boils down to a discussion of whether the shareholder in question can be defined as an external or internal shareholder. As such, one can quickly recognize that the internal shareholders would necessarily refer to the president of the hospital, the board of trustees and ultimate hospital management, as well as the individual staff members within the hospital itself. As a means of understanding these internal shareholders, one can reasonably infer that the ultimate goal that these individuals collectively represent is that of job stability, continued profitability, avoidance of negative PR, and perpetuation of an image of social responsibility and excellence in care. Contrastingly, the external shareholders are represented by two distinctly different groups. The first, and most obvious of these, is that of the individual patients. As discussed by the preceding analysis, these are those individuals that must make use of the hospital and its facilities as a means of bettering their own health or the health of their loved ones. As such, the level and complexity of the ethical issues that this group must understand and seek to grapple with is obviously quite limited. The secondary group of external shareholders are necessarily those of the vendors that seek to supply the hospital with the various business needs that it has in serving the community. What is unique about the case of the vendors is the fact they serve as a type of middle ground between those entities which have thus far been discussed and enumerated upon. In this way, although the end purpose of the vendors is to make money, they are also aware of the ethical challenges that this hospital is currently facing and have acted as interested parties in seeking to discuss this with the appropriate levels of hospital management. Although they are ultimately interested in furthering their own business needs, they realize that they can only continue to do this as long as the hospital is functional, operational, and has the trust and best interests of the populations they are serving as their guiding interest. Ethical Responsibility Fulfilled? With respect to whether or not Dr. DoRight has fulfilled his ethical responsibility in this matter by simply relating the high level of patient death and subsequent failures of hospital staff, it is the belief of this author that the answer to this is a resounding no. Although Dr. DoRight has made a correct and ethical decision to elevate these concerns to the upper management of the hospital, the ethical and moral decision does not merely end with him making such a statement to upper management. His promise to get to the bottom of the deaths and determine the ultimate cause was the continuation of his ethical responsibility as the manager and president of the hospital. Although cliche, the truth of the matter is that the hospital president is ethically and morally responsible for the high levels of patient death experienced within the hospital. Although this may seem as a gross exaggeration, the fact remains that the president of the hospital has been made aware of this shortcoming, has mentioned it to his superiors and has made little if any attempt to fix the problem by providing the long anticipated and much needed study and internal analysis which could have shed some light onto what was going on – let alone saved a number of lives in the process. In this way, regardless of the fact that he has ultimately briefed the senior shareholders on the fact that the problem exists is not in and of itself sufficient to warrant the ethical issue from being released from his purview. Moreover, the fact of the matter is that the situation itself has not gone away or even gotten better; it has continued to be manifest within the hospital patients suffering under his charge. In this way, not only has the ethical responsibility not been fulfilled, it has in fact compounded during the amount of time that has passed with complete inaction on his part. Was the Action Pursued by the University Sufficient; a Review from a Utilitarian vs Deontological Perspectives? With regards to whether the course of action which has been pursued by the hospital and by Dr. DoRight in the subsequent years after the revelation was ultimately ethical, this analysis will include a utilitarian review of ethics for the given case. For purposes of clarity, many would agree that a utilitarian view of ethics is one that seeks to maximize utility (Halbert 2003). This of course can be done through a variety of ways but is mainly concentric on seeking to maximize happiness and/or reduce suffering. Although the happiness of the hospital staff, hospital president, hospital management, and vendors may have been maximized, the fact of the matter was the ultimate suffering and even death were not reduced; neither was there any actionable steps taken to seek to reduce these factors. Secondarily, through examining the given case through the lens of the principle of deontology, the ethics and actions that Dr. DoRight has taken also come up short. The principle of deontology dictates that the actions and decisions that are made must conform to a level of duty and responsibility that the given shareholder necessarily retains. Naturally, although Dr. DoRight has made the decision, according to his duty, to present the findings to the requisite shareholders in his committee meeting, he has however failed to follow up or seek to provide any means of correcting the situation. As such, he has ultimately failed both in this aspect as well as in the aspect of overall ethical and moral behavior as a result. Conclusion: It is the hope of this author that the preceding analysis has set forward a clear case for why Dr. DoRight has failed in his responsibilities and represents ethical issues born out of a desire to maintain the status quo. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to assume the ultimate reason for why an individual such as Dr. Do Right would take such a track, it is not beyond the pale of logic to assume that the ultimate reasons for this could include some of the following; desire to maintain his own employment, desire not to shake the boat and risk receiving negative public relations interest, desire to maintain the high profitability that the hospital has been enjoying, desire to retain the growing status and appreciation with which he is being viewed, and ultimate laziness. Further, as has been proven by both the utilitarian and deontological approaches, the decisions made by Dr. DoRight, although partially laudable, do not represent a follow through or a completed moral and/or ethical completion of the ultimate issue that is under discussion. Rather than attempting to give credit to Dr. DoRight for what he has done that is correct, the purpose of the analysis has been to point to the fact that one cannot judge the actions of Dr. DoRight as correct or incorrect (moral or immoral/ethical or unethical) without proceeding to whether he has sought to enact any steps that would seek to lessen or reduce the wrongful death and patient suffering that has been experienced under his watch as hospital president. References Drabiak, K., Wegner, C., Fredland, V., & Helft, P. R. (2007). Ethics, Law, and Commercial Surrogacy: A Call for Uniformity. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35(2), 300-309. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00139.x Halbert, T. (2003). Law & ethics in the business environment. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western West. Jacobson, P. D. (2005). Health Law 2005: An Agenda. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33(4), 725-738. Read More