Money over Matter - Professional Behavior - Case Study Example

Money over Matter - Professional Behavior Professional behavior of the physician is part of the culture of medical treatment. The doctor’s attitudes and communication with the patient are vital ingredients to successful recovery. The medical oaths depict a physician’s recommended mannerisms, motives and responsibilities towards his or her patients (Elsayed & Ahmed, 2009). It is a societal presumption that professionals of all types, including physicians, will make appropriate decisions for the patients, workmates and associates. Since individuals accord the doctors privileges to execute their profession independently, they are obliged to expect responsible treatment from the physicians even without external controls (Jones, McCullough & Richman, 2008). Ethics is a state of behaviors that collectively lead to the successful management of an institution. In addition, it is essential for the physicians to act in a courteous manner towards their patients and colleagues (Brophy & American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2010). It is easier for corporate bodies and organizations to award donations to medical institutions that uphold these virtues. The Ford Foundation seeks to award a hefty sum to the hospital but this action is compromised by the actions of a doctor within the institution, Dr Goodyear. His behavioral conduct is in question and can possibly ruin the prospects of this sizeable donation to the hospital. Disruptive Behavior of Dr. Goodyear According to Poitras and Meredith (2009), communication is a critical tool in the operations of any organization. As expected, it will be difficult to assume the impact of the multiple accusations of Dr. Goodyear’s against communication methods. These acts clearly stipulate disruptive mannerism through using inappropriate words, which is likely to interfere with the quality healthcare. This behavior seems repetitive and can jeopardize the Ford Foundations donation to the hospital. Considering professional ethics as critical in the performance of any institution the hospital will have to act upon Dr. Goodyear’s behavior (Elsayed &. Ahmed, 2009). This disruptive behavior could be shown through, demeaning or abusive language, inappropriate rudeness, insensitive comments and unwarranted arguments. This has prompted the union to file grievances against Goodyear and his practice will be subject to review on their meeting in 3 months time. It is fundamental for the chief executive officer (C.E.O) to consider various recommendations, which the hospital administration can execute in taming the misconduct of the doctor. Reformation of the doctor’s habit can be considerably beneficial to the hospital and its objective of safeguarding patients lives (Poitras & Meredith, 2009). Goodyear is a physician with extraordinary talents but the administrations will have to act on the concerns about his inappropriate mannerisms Recommendations Thewlis, S. (2007) asserts that the hospital administration can set up a team to explain on the drastic measures that it will take if the doctor refuses to conform. The hospital can suspend Doctor Goodyear for a while and advice him on the grave implications of his actions. A possible outcome would be the revocation of his practicing license. This would further impede his ambitions of dispensing quality medical attention to individuals. Secondly, the hospital can employ professionals to train Goodyear on the appropriate mechanisms of communication. As such, inappropriate language can initiate extreme emotions of aggravated parties’ thereby inhibiting quality care (Elsayed & Ahmed, 2009). The professionals could assist in advancing the communication skills of the doctor. Thirdly, the hospital can recommend the administration to transfer Dr Goodyear from an operations function to a consultative capacity. In this position, the interactions of the doctor will become less and therefore the professional output of the optimal. Wall (2007) suggests the advisory roles usually mitigate the incidences of inappropriate arguments with the hospital staff and patients. Finally, the hospital can organize forums that will promote positive interactions of the workmates. These programs will involve discussions, sports and outdoor activities that assist the workmates to actively interact and create sustainable relationships. Advantages of the Recommendations The brief suspension of Goodyear will enable him exhaustively assess his conduct and this realization can bring about reformation of his attitude towards the workmates. Furthermore, the threat of revocation of the medical license can instigate the change of attitude on the doctor (Little, 2008). Without a license, Goodyear will not be capable of exercising his passion, which entails medical treatment. This would be a useful tool for the administration in coercing the doctor to refrain from inappropriate language (Wall, 2007). When an individual assumes a consultative function, his/her interactions with the other professionals become minimal (Brophy & American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2010). Since the hospital administrations objective would be to reduce or prevent the incidences of his inappropriate remarks this would be beneficial. Moreover, training of Goodyear on the appropriate communication methods to incorporate in his conversations can yield positive results and improve Ford Foundations confidence in Dr Goodyear. In fact, his participation in the interactive seminars and events that the hospital will conduct can initiate friendships. The workmates will associate in a more free nature and they will understand each other deeply beyond their professional relationship. Disadvantages It is likely the suspension can aggravate the doctor and cause him to seek employment elsewhere. This would be a considerable loss to the hospital since Dr Goodyear is highly experienced. Besides, this action can add credibility to the claims of the union regarding the doctor’s ethical incapacity. Termination of the doctor’s license would be unfortunate considering his immense talents and experience. Indeed, considering Goodyear’s contribution to the hospital and healthcare as a whole could be responsible for the goodwill gesture from the Ford Foundation, it will be unfortunate to witness his shameful departure. Another impediment would be Goodyear’s refusal to cooperate with the professional trainer in enhancing his communication techniques. Similarly, his refusal might be extended towards the interactive seminars. Such actions would curtail the efforts of the administration in taming his misconduct. Ironically, the execution of the last two recommendations is dependable on the attitude of the doctor. Conclusion In summary, effective communication is essential in medical practice (Thewlis, 2007) assets. This is a moral responsibility, which the individuals within the medical occupation have to uphold. Especially during medical procedures, the communication among the medical staff should be effective. Ethical standards promote values that are critical in ensuring good communication (Little, 2008). It would be advisable for the hospital management to execute the above recommendations in order for it to redeem the confidence of Ford Foundation in the hospital. Evidently, $ 500 million will exceedingly help the institution in purchasing health equipment and improving health care. Dr Goodyear’s cooperation will substantially assist the process of restoring confidence to the sponsors. References Brophy, J. R., & American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. (2010). Leadership essentials for emergency medical services. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Elsayed, D &. Ahmed, R. (2009).Medical Ethics: What is it? Why is it important?. Sudanese Journal of Public Health, 4, 2. Retrieved from http://www.sjph.net.sd/files/vol4i2/SJPH-vol4i2-p284-287.pdf Jones, J. W., McCullough, L. B., & Richman, B. W. (2008). The ethics of surgical practice: Cases, dilemmas, and resolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Little, T. (2008). Defining and Imparting Professional Behavior in Physical Therapist Educational Programs: Perspectives of Selected Senior Faculty. Carlifornia, CAL: Proquest Poitras, G., & Meredith, L. (2009). Ethical transparency and economic medicalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 313-325. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9849-2 Runciman, B., Merry, A., & Walton, M. (2007). Safety and ethics in healthcare: A guide to getting it right. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Thewlis, S. (2007). Ethical issues for a health care regulator: Why good governance matters. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 4, 119-121. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/885917663?accountid=45049 Wall, S. (2007). Organizational ethics, change, and stakeholder involvement: A survey of physicians. HEC Forum, 19(3), 227-43. doi: 10.1007/s10730-007-9042-5 Read More