1. In some instances the Dr. G may be acting morally, but in other instances Dr. G may not be because some pateints may not need to be referred to a specialty hospital and could be taken care of at teh RASA hospital but if Dr. G is referring patients only to the RASA hospital when they need to be referred to a more specialized hospital then Dr. G would be acting immorally. 2. RASA's profit sharing policy is not morally acceptable. Because allowing the Doctor's bottom line to be affeted by the referral of patient's will not allow the patient's to receive the best care that they may need. Also, this will cause the surgeons to want to refer all of their patient's to the RASA hospital when they need to be at a more specialized hospital. 3. RASA's policy does work to the detriment of the patient when the patient needs to be referred to a more specialized hospital.
1. Dr. G is acting in a morally acceptable way. As long as she is operating on her patients to the best of her ability, it is an added bonus she gets more money doing the operation at a particular hospital. 2. RASA's profit-sharing policy is not morally acceptable. There are plenty of non-profit hospitals that do just fine. 3. RASA's policy works to the detriment of the patient if they require their patients to pay more for their operation than another hospital.
Dr. G is not acting immoral if the RASA facility is equipped to provide adequate care for the patients. If Dr. G was endangering patients by referring them to a RASA facility to receive financial benefits, that is immoral. The profit-sharing policy is acceptable as long as the facilities are used to best serve the patients. If the incentives are used in any way to bribe surgeons to use an inadequate facility, that is immoral. As long as the RASA facilities are adequate to care for what is in the patients’ best interests, the policy is not a detriment to the patients.
1. Dr. G may or may not be acting morally. If she is doing it because of the quality of care, then she is ok. However, if she is doing it so she can get money, then that is obviously immoral. 2. RASA's profit sharing policy is immoral. The policy creates a conflict of interest with the doctors. The doctor's motives will be based on quantity of patients moved through that hospital, independent of the quality of care received. 3. RASA's policy does work to the detriment of the patient. They are treated as a means only, not in their own end. This is disrespectful according to Kant, and therefore immoral.
1. Dr. G is acting morally as long as both facilities are equally equipped and she is not referring to patients just because she wants to earn money.
2. RASA's profit sharing I think is immoral because the doctor's know they will receive more money if they bring more patients into their surgeries. This can cause for some doctors to become greedy and put money over the priority of care for the patient.
I agree with Dana on this case. As long as Dr G is referring patients based on the quality of care, she is moral. When the question of money comes into play then the waters get cloudy.
1) Dr. G is not acting immorally simply by referring the patient to a RASA hospital. Just because she benefits from performing surgeries in that particular facility does not mean that she had immoral intentions in referring the patient there. If she refers the patient solely because of her financial benefit while risking potential harm to the patient, she is acting immorally. 2) RASA's profit sharing policy is not morally acceptable. A doctor should never be placed in a situation where they have to choose between their own financial well-being and the well-being of their patients. This profit-sharing policy does exactly that. 3)RASA's policy does not necessarily work to the detriment of the patient. If the patient has a truly virtuous doctor, the doctor would choose the well-being of the patient over any financial benefit. This does not change the fact that the physician should never be put in this situation to begin with.
1. In some instances the Dr. G may be acting morally, but in other instances Dr. G may not be because some pateints may not need to be referred to a specialty hospital and could be taken care of at teh RASA hospital but if Dr. G is referring patients only to the RASA hospital when they need to be referred to a more specialized hospital then Dr. G would be acting immorally.
ReplyDelete2. RASA's profit sharing policy is not morally acceptable. Because allowing the Doctor's bottom line to be affeted by the referral of patient's will not allow the patient's to receive the best care that they may need. Also, this will cause the surgeons to want to refer all of their patient's to the RASA hospital when they need to be at a more specialized hospital.
3. RASA's policy does work to the detriment of the patient when the patient needs to be referred to a more specialized hospital.
1. Dr. G is acting in a morally acceptable way. As long as she is operating on her patients to the best of her ability, it is an added bonus she gets more money doing the operation at a particular hospital.
ReplyDelete2. RASA's profit-sharing policy is not morally acceptable. There are plenty of non-profit hospitals that do just fine.
3. RASA's policy works to the detriment of the patient if they require their patients to pay more for their operation than another hospital.
Dr. G is not acting immoral if the RASA facility is equipped to provide adequate care for the patients. If Dr. G was endangering patients by referring them to a RASA facility to receive financial benefits, that is immoral. The profit-sharing policy is acceptable as long as the facilities are used to best serve the patients. If the incentives are used in any way to bribe surgeons to use an inadequate facility, that is immoral. As long as the RASA facilities are adequate to care for what is in the patients’ best interests, the policy is not a detriment to the patients.
ReplyDelete1. Dr. G may or may not be acting morally. If she is doing it because of the quality of care, then she is ok. However, if she is doing it so she can get money, then that is obviously immoral.
ReplyDelete2. RASA's profit sharing policy is immoral. The policy creates a conflict of interest with the doctors. The doctor's motives will be based on quantity of patients moved through that hospital, independent of the quality of care received.
3. RASA's policy does work to the detriment of the patient. They are treated as a means only, not in their own end. This is disrespectful according to Kant, and therefore immoral.
1. Dr. G is acting morally as long as both facilities are equally equipped and she is not referring to patients just because she wants to earn money.
ReplyDelete2. RASA's profit sharing I think is immoral because the doctor's know they will receive more money if they bring more patients into their surgeries. This can cause for some doctors to become greedy and put money over the priority of care for the patient.
I agree with Dana on this case. As long as Dr G is referring patients based on the quality of care, she is moral. When the question of money comes into play then the waters get cloudy.
ReplyDelete1) Dr. G is not acting immorally simply by referring the patient to a RASA hospital. Just because she benefits from performing surgeries in that particular facility does not mean that she had immoral intentions in referring the patient there. If she refers the patient solely because of her financial benefit while risking potential harm to the patient, she is acting immorally.
ReplyDelete2) RASA's profit sharing policy is not morally acceptable. A doctor should never be placed in a situation where they have to choose between their own financial well-being and the well-being of their patients. This profit-sharing policy does exactly that.
3)RASA's policy does not necessarily work to the detriment of the patient. If the patient has a truly virtuous doctor, the doctor would choose the well-being of the patient over any financial benefit. This does not change the fact that the physician should never be put in this situation to begin with.