Ethical Principles Underlying Leadership - Essay Example

? DISCUSSIONS ON AUTONOMY, NON-MALFEASANCE AND BENEFICENCE, AND JUSTICE AS ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING LEADERSHIP Good leadership is a core function in making sure that an organization works properly, with principles that aim to address issues that may arise from the lack of overseeing and guiding subordinates. However in a fast-paced world leadership becomes equated to control, dominance, and total authority, which deviates from the original authoritative principles of leadership. Because of this, many organizations fail as a result of the inaccurate meaning of leadership even among its professional managers. Although the medical profession itself adheres to the idea of putting its patients’ wellbeing and health first, some supervisors tend to become menaces or bullies to their own people, which demeans the essence of being in the healthcare industry. Belittling subordinates not only crush their spirits but their willingness to cooperate in taking care of patients, and such a mindset could destroy teamwork within the group. Thus, managers in the healthcare industry must not only remember that they have a commitment to serve their patients, but also they must remember that as leaders in an organization, they must build the mindset and principles of their underlings as well, in order to ensure the continued success of the organization in terms of developing manpower and servicing the people. Discussions on Autonomy, Non-Malfeasance and Beneficence, and Justice as Ethical Principles Underlying Leadership Answer to Discussion Question 1: It is common for healthcare facilities to update their work plans to follow a set of guidelines to conform to high quality standards (Morrison, 2011). However, it is also expected that some members of the institutions in question would raise their points on opposing the implementation of changes within their healthcare system. An example of such changes met with strong opposition was mentioned in detail, where medical personnel were made to conform to evidence-based practices in dealing with their patients (Morrison, 2011, p.233). The situation showed how their autonomy in handling patients was violated, but while there were major changes in how to deal with patients, there was still enough autonomy left for the healthcare personnel in the scenario, and that they could still take care of their patients in whatever way they deem fit. On a personal experience, in terms of fidelity and autonomy, the author had to face some problems with regards to handling patients under palliative care and their families. The physician handling the case wanted to fully inform the family as well as the patient of the expected life span after several failed chemotherapy sessions. The author voiced concern over the ethical aspect of such, and added explanations that it could prove stressful to both the family and the patient if they knew exactly that the time to be spent together was limited. In the end, to remain honest with the patient and family a compromise was made in telling them of the situation, though some parts of the truth such as estimated timeframe were held back so as not to add stress. Telling them about the shorter lifespan was better than not telling them about it at all, and that this helps them to prepare in the event that the patient suddenly expire within the expected time frame, showing how ethics and fidelity can come together in the provision of care. Answer to Discussion Question 2: Non-malfeasance has been defined as one of the basic principles in healthcare that requires providers to do the patient not any kind of harm, however, the vagueness of the term creates problems in determining whether actions done for patients are harmful or not (Monagle & Thomasma, 2004). This means that harm becomes a relatively subjective term, and what may work for one patient might fail in another’s case. This is one reason why patients normally put their complete trust on medical personnel in keeping them safe, no matter if they would be harmed or not. It is expected that non-malfeasance must not only be practiced within the patient and provider system, but also within the system of providers as well, including superiors and subordinates (Morrison, 2011). However many providers, especially those with positions and have subordinates lose track of this concept, and instead treat their subordinates even lesser than their own patients. Examples of these would be the menacing doctor or the nurse manager bullying the underlings. Such people of authority seem undeserving to be in their positions, as they do not give respect to other people, making it harder for the subordinates or even people of the same rank to work with them within the same institution (Owen, 1990). It is expected that in leadership positions, in the case of medical personnel aside from additional work such as guiding people and being accountable for their actions, leaders must also show their subordinates that they are living the ethical principles expected of them as healthcare providers. However, those exerting power and influence over other people have confused control over authority and leadership, which not only jeopardizes the established system in the workplace, but also causes stress within the organization as well (Wheatley, 2006). Thus, while it is never wrong to implement order within the workplace, there must also be harmony among its members, and that too much control and abuse of power must be stopped to give way for exercising non-malfeasance in the workplace as well, not just toward patients. Answer to Discussion Question 3: Fair treatment to all patients is important, especially for healthcare institutions that give much more emphasis to philanthropy than business (Morrison, 2011). As much as possible all people in need of medical attention are given equal chances, including discounts in expenses or subsidies from either the government or from private entities. However, with the increase in the taxation of citizens, problems with insurance coverage, and other aspects of financing medical bills, issues could arise in terms of the definition of basic health care, modes of payment, as well as maintaining a balance between compassion to patients and the upkeep of professionalism with the business side of healthcare. It is suggested that for facilities that aim to serve much more patients but would need any form of subsidy, grants or contracts may be used to raise funds for their cause. For people that aim to use fundraising to cover healthcare expenses, it is important to delineate government subsidy as a grant versus a contract (Burke & Friedman, 2011). Grants are more flexible than contracts, and may be able to serve a wider range of patients, as opposed to contracts, which are usually focused on specificities in the agreements. Taking this into account, managers and leaders in healthcare facilities must plan thoroughly which kind of fundraising would be chosen, as well as weighing in the pros and cons. Also, the high-risk patient potential of the community must be considered, in order to check what resources may be appropriate to the needs of the community (Morrison, 2011). Leaders in the healthcare industry must be able to decide which kind of fundraising is appropriate for the community, as well as finding ways to collect the additional funds. Considerations in the changing phases of the healthcare industry could also give an idea on whether to update funding strategies or just keep the original as is (Burke & Friedman, 2011). The appropriate decisions could give healthcare providers both balance between the business and philanthropy sides of keeping patients in optimal health. References Burke, R., & Friedman, L. (2011). Essentials of management and leadership in public health. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Monagle, J., & Thomasma, D. (2004). Health care ethics: critical issues for the 21st century. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Morrison, E. (2011). Ethics in health administration: a practical approach for decision makers. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Owen, H. (1990). In search of leaders. San Francisco: Wiley. Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Read More