Just because Dr. G is referring her patients to a hospital where she is making more money does not mean that she is acting immorally. RASA is a hospital that is a business and the point of business, especially in the capitalist sense, is to offer goods at a cheap price. So perhaps the operation at RASA is cheaper than the other local hospitals. Maybe, the care at RASA is better than at the other local hospitals. If Dr. G is referring her patients here strictly to make a profit for herself then no, this is not morally acceptable. So, I do not think that there is enough information to make an adequate decision about this question. I do not believe that RASA's policy on profit-sharing is morally acceptable. This profit-sharing behavior is solely a behavior to increase business and profits for the hospital, not to provide the best care for the patients. In the case of money hungry physicians I think that RASA's policy does work to the detriment of the patients. I feel that physicians should refer patients to the institution with the best care. Whether that be a non-profit institution or a for profit organization.
1. If Dr. G is referring her patients to RASA hospital it does not mean she is being immoral if she is sending them there based on their needs and the care they can recieve there. However, i would say she is acting immorally if she is sending them there instead of somewhere else becuase she can make extra money off them when for example she can send them somewhere else that is cheaper or closer etc. 2. I do not believe that the RASA's profit-sharing pilicy is morally acceptable. I do not agree with giving the surgeons extra bonus for using a certain hospital's operating rooms. The pt. should be sent to hospitals with operating rooms that will provide the best care and best surgeons, not surgeons looking for extra cash by working on them. 3. I have to agree with the blog before me (Jacob) and say that I think it does work to the detriment of the patient. If as surgeon is referring patients to RASA so they can make extra profit then they most likely do not have a general care in their well being. Just my oppinion.
1. Dr. G could be acting immorally if she is sending all of her paient's there because she has a secondary benefit by sending them to the RASA hospital. However if she is refering some patients to other hospitals and some to the RASA hospital then she is acting morally because she is sending patients to the hospitals they need to be at based on the care they will receive not because of money she will or will not receive. 2. I do not think that RASAs profit sharing policy is moral because it is almost as if they are bribing the surgeons to refer patients to that hospital because each surgeon is receiving secondary gain by sending the patients to the RASA hospital. 3. I feel that in some cases it is working to the detriment of the patient because while some patients may need the care provided at the RASA hospital others may need to go to a more specialized hospital but because the surgeons get a part of the profit they will be more persuaded to refer the patients to the RASA hospital.
1.) Dr. G is only acting immoral if she is sending her patients there with the full purpose of getting more money. However, I do not believe that would be her intent. I would feel more comfortable as a doctor, referring my patients to another facility in which I am involved because 1.) I am familiar with the policies and equiptment available that can help the patient. 2.) I am familiar with the staff and their qualifications on any particular case and lastly, 3.) I am involved and am the most knowledgable about the patient's conditions. Either I could perform the necessary task or can fully trust my supporting staff to treat the patient with a care path consistent to the one I have instilled for my patient. I do not believe a referral to the RASA is immoral. 2.) I do not agree with RASA, but I do not think they are immoral. They are still providing patient care and that is their main interest. The fact that they receive the money for the exam does not make it moral. If the doctor's sole purpose for working and referring patients there is to make more money, then I think the doctor would be immoral, but not the facility. 3.) In a way, I do feel that RASA works to the detriment of the patient. The hospital would probably be more expensive than another hospital, which singles out poorer patients from the best doctors that most likely work at the facility in which they get paid the most. However, a patient may really like a doctor and want to "pay" them back quite literally for the work they have done to aid in their care path.
1. I would say Dr. G is not acting immorally if the quality of care at similar facilities is the same as the RASA hospitals and if other factors such as price and location are the same for patients 2. The RASA's profit sharing policy is not morally acceptable because it draws talent away from the not for profit hospitals that may be just as good, and they are bribing the surgeons to use their particular facilities to earn more money. 3.The policy can work to the detriment of the patient by forcing them to go to differing hospitals that may have different standards of quality of care than those of other hospitals.
1. Dr. G may or may not be acting morally by sending patients to the RASA hospital. If she is doing it strictly for her own benefit, she is acting immorally because she is treating her patients as a means, not in their own end. This would violate Kant's categorical imperative. However, if she is sending the patients there because it is a good hospital and not for a secondary motive, then she is acting morally. 2. I do believe the method of profit sharing is immoral. This created a conflict of interest with the surgeons to get more money by using certain operating rooms. A universal bonus could be given and be ok, but the amount of times a room is used is not. 3. This policy could work to the detriment of the patient. Minor surgeries may be scheduled that are not needed or that other routes of treatment may take care of. Also, the quality of the surgery may be lower because they may be trying to do as many as possible to get the maximum amout of money. This may be an extreme case, however it may happen.
1) As long as Dr. G. is sending her patients to the RASA hospital because that is where they will get the best care then no she not acting immorally. However, if she is sending her patients there only for her own finical benefit then she is acting immorally. 2)I do not think RASA's profit sharing policy is morally acceptable. I feel this policy is a bribe to the doctors operating there. It is a way for them to get more business, and is not keeping the patients best interest in mind. 3)The policy could be working as a detriment to the patient if there is another hospital in the area that is better equipped to take care of the patient. However, if the patients are still getting great physical moral care, then they are not in any harm.
1. I dont think that she is acting morally because she knows that she will benefit for sending her patient to an RASA hospital. She is not acting for the patient's needs, but for her own gains and this is unethical. 2. I dont think that RASA policies are acceptable because they are not acting for the patients, but for themselves to gain profits and i see this as an unethical situation for physicians. They should be willing to help everyone no matter what the finanical situations are. 3. I think that RASA's policy is working to the detriment of the patient because they are only sent there to make money for the physican but not to get the quality care they deserve. I think that physicians would be less likely to do a good job, because they know they are getting paid no matter what and they know that if they get 20 surgeries in one day they will make way more than just 2.
Dr. G is acting in a morally acceptable way. However, as long as she is truly doing what she thinks is best for the patient. If she sends every patient to RASA knowing that the price, or care is best for each individual patient then there is nothing wrong with that. RASA's profit sharing policy is acceptable, just because Dr. G tells a patient to go to a particular hospital does not mean the patient has to. Each patient, or the patients family should determine what is best for them. If they trust Dr. G and feel that RASA is the best place for them or a loved one then that is where they should go. Insoe ways it is working to the detriment of the patient, but ultimately if each patient is getting the individualized care they need regardless of who brings in extra money then that should be the ultimate goal.
Katlyn makes a good point that Dr. G COULD still be acting morally in this situation IF she manages to forget the whole setup and sends patients to the hospital that is best for them. However, if she succumbs to the temptation of a better profit for herself, she (and RASA, because the company knowingly put her in this unfair situation) does two things:
1. Does not consider which location would be best for the patient. Whether this is physical location, date for which a specific hospital can schedule, specialist who might be present, every patient's needs are unique.
2. Eliminates competition between the hospitals. Right now, they are "equally equipped". However, if surrounding hospitals know that all surgeries are done at RASA, what motivation will they have to keep their equipment up-to-date, and then what is to stop RASA from monopolizing the local medical field and jacking up prices?
1. I agree with Dana in the sense that this situation could go both ways. If Dr. G is only sending patients to the RASA hospital because she knows she will get some secondary gain out of it, then this is immoral. If the hospital is the better of all the options yes, she is acting morally. I do think it is natural for a person to recommend someone to do something if that person knows they will get something out of it, especially money. 2. I do not think that RASA's profit sharing policy is morally acceptable. I think that if they are going to have some sort of incintive for amount of time in the OR, then it should be alotted to everyone equally. 3. Yes, I think that RASA's policy is working to the detriment of the patient because the doctors may be more apt to not give quality care since they know they are getting paid regardless.
I do not think Dr. G is acting immorally by referring her patients to RASA unless she has her own financial interest before her patients best interest. The case does not say she is doing so, but usually when money is involved people are put into these ethically questionable situations that might make them consider their pockets before anything else.
Since RASA is a for-profit hospital I believe their profit-sharing policy is morally acceptable. Any business that is for profit should have the right to give incentives for people to come to them.
Dr. G ins't acting inmorally by refer patients to the RASA hospital. If the RASA is just a nice as the other hospitals in the area i don't think it's such a bad thing. He could be using his profit sharing money to built homes in africa villiages so you can determine that his actions are not moral with the information that is being given. I think that the profit sharing in the RASA is morally acceptable. In fact most hospitals so some kind of gain-sharing were employees get some kind of bonus just for working there. I believe that it gives that hospital the oppurtunity to have the best staff possible because everyone is going to want to work there if they get that extra money just for working there. I don't think we have enough information to determine whether or not the hospital is being detrimental to it's patients. If they are charging more for there services, then yea, I would say that was wrong. But there profit sharing could benefit the patient because they are bring in the best staff possible to care for their patients.
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. 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.
Just because Dr. G is referring her patients to a hospital where she is making more money does not mean that she is acting immorally. RASA is a hospital that is a business and the point of business, especially in the capitalist sense, is to offer goods at a cheap price. So perhaps the operation at RASA is cheaper than the other local hospitals. Maybe, the care at RASA is better than at the other local hospitals. If Dr. G is referring her patients here strictly to make a profit for herself then no, this is not morally acceptable. So, I do not think that there is enough information to make an adequate decision about this question. I do not believe that RASA's policy on profit-sharing is morally acceptable. This profit-sharing behavior is solely a behavior to increase business and profits for the hospital, not to provide the best care for the patients. In the case of money hungry physicians I think that RASA's policy does work to the detriment of the patients. I feel that physicians should refer patients to the institution with the best care. Whether that be a non-profit institution or a for profit organization.
ReplyDelete1. If Dr. G is referring her patients to RASA hospital it does not mean she is being immoral if she is sending them there based on their needs and the care they can recieve there. However, i would say she is acting immorally if she is sending them there instead of somewhere else becuase she can make extra money off them when for example she can send them somewhere else that is cheaper or closer etc.
ReplyDelete2. I do not believe that the RASA's profit-sharing pilicy is morally acceptable. I do not agree with giving the surgeons extra bonus for using a certain hospital's operating rooms. The pt. should be sent to hospitals with operating rooms that will provide the best care and best surgeons, not surgeons looking for extra cash by working on them.
3. I have to agree with the blog before me (Jacob) and say that I think it does work to the detriment of the patient. If as surgeon is referring patients to RASA so they can make extra profit then they most likely do not have a general care in their well being. Just my oppinion.
1. Dr. G could be acting immorally if she is sending all of her paient's there because she has a secondary benefit by sending them to the RASA hospital. However if she is refering some patients to other hospitals and some to the RASA hospital then she is acting morally because she is sending patients to the hospitals they need to be at based on the care they will receive not because of money she will or will not receive.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think that RASAs profit sharing policy is moral because it is almost as if they are bribing the surgeons to refer patients to that hospital because each surgeon is receiving secondary gain by sending the patients to the RASA hospital.
3. I feel that in some cases it is working to the detriment of the patient because while some patients may need the care provided at the RASA hospital others may need to go to a more specialized hospital but because the surgeons get a part of the profit they will be more persuaded to refer the patients to the RASA hospital.
1.) Dr. G is only acting immoral if she is sending her patients there with the full purpose of getting more money. However, I do not believe that would be her intent. I would feel more comfortable as a doctor, referring my patients to another facility in which I am involved because 1.) I am familiar with the policies and equiptment available that can help the patient. 2.) I am familiar with the staff and their qualifications on any particular case and lastly, 3.) I am involved and am the most knowledgable about the patient's conditions. Either I could perform the necessary task or can fully trust my supporting staff to treat the patient with a care path consistent to the one I have instilled for my patient. I do not believe a referral to the RASA is immoral.
ReplyDelete2.) I do not agree with RASA, but I do not think they are immoral. They are still providing patient care and that is their main interest. The fact that they receive the money for the exam does not make it moral. If the doctor's sole purpose for working and referring patients there is to make more money, then I think the doctor would be immoral, but not the facility.
3.) In a way, I do feel that RASA works to the detriment of the patient. The hospital would probably be more expensive than another hospital, which singles out poorer patients from the best doctors that most likely work at the facility in which they get paid the most. However, a patient may really like a doctor and want to "pay" them back quite literally for the work they have done to aid in their care path.
1. I would say Dr. G is not acting immorally if the quality of care at similar facilities is the same as the RASA hospitals and if other factors such as price and location are the same for patients
ReplyDelete2. The RASA's profit sharing policy is not morally acceptable because it draws talent away from the not for profit hospitals that may be just as good, and they are bribing the surgeons to use their particular facilities to earn more money.
3.The policy can work to the detriment of the patient by forcing them to go to differing hospitals that may have different standards of quality of care than those of other hospitals.
1. Dr. G may or may not be acting morally by sending patients to the RASA hospital. If she is doing it strictly for her own benefit, she is acting immorally because she is treating her patients as a means, not in their own end. This would violate Kant's categorical imperative. However, if she is sending the patients there because it is a good hospital and not for a secondary motive, then she is acting morally.
ReplyDelete2. I do believe the method of profit sharing is immoral. This created a conflict of interest with the surgeons to get more money by using certain operating rooms. A universal bonus could be given and be ok, but the amount of times a room is used is not.
3. This policy could work to the detriment of the patient. Minor surgeries may be scheduled that are not needed or that other routes of treatment may take care of. Also, the quality of the surgery may be lower because they may be trying to do as many as possible to get the maximum amout of money. This may be an extreme case, however it may happen.
1) As long as Dr. G. is sending her patients to the RASA hospital because that is where they will get the best care then no she not acting immorally. However, if she is sending her patients there only for her own finical benefit then she is acting immorally.
ReplyDelete2)I do not think RASA's profit sharing policy is morally acceptable. I feel this policy is a bribe to the doctors operating there. It is a way for them to get more business, and is not keeping the patients best interest in mind.
3)The policy could be working as a detriment to the patient if there is another hospital in the area that is better equipped to take care of the patient. However, if the patients are still getting great physical moral care, then they are not in any harm.
1. I dont think that she is acting morally because she knows that she will benefit for sending her patient to an RASA hospital. She is not acting for the patient's needs, but for her own gains and this is unethical.
ReplyDelete2. I dont think that RASA policies are acceptable because they are not acting for the patients, but for themselves to gain profits and i see this as an unethical situation for physicians. They should be willing to help everyone no matter what the finanical situations are.
3. I think that RASA's policy is working to the detriment of the patient because they are only sent there to make money for the physican but not to get the quality care they deserve. I think that physicians would be less likely to do a good job, because they know they are getting paid no matter what and they know that if they get 20 surgeries in one day they will make way more than just 2.
Dr. G is acting in a morally acceptable way. However, as long as she is truly doing what she thinks is best for the patient. If she sends every patient to RASA knowing that the price, or care is best for each individual patient then there is nothing wrong with that.
ReplyDeleteRASA's profit sharing policy is acceptable, just because Dr. G tells a patient to go to a particular hospital does not mean the patient has to. Each patient, or the patients family should determine what is best for them. If they trust Dr. G and feel that RASA is the best place for them or a loved one then that is where they should go.
Insoe ways it is working to the detriment of the patient, but ultimately if each patient is getting the individualized care they need regardless of who brings in extra money then that should be the ultimate goal.
Katlyn makes a good point that Dr. G COULD still be acting morally in this situation IF she manages to forget the whole setup and sends patients to the hospital that is best for them. However, if she succumbs to the temptation of a better profit for herself, she (and RASA, because the company knowingly put her in this unfair situation) does two things:
ReplyDelete1. Does not consider which location would be best for the patient. Whether this is physical location, date for which a specific hospital can schedule, specialist who might be present, every patient's needs are unique.
2. Eliminates competition between the hospitals. Right now, they are "equally equipped". However, if surrounding hospitals know that all surgeries are done at RASA, what motivation will they have to keep their equipment up-to-date, and then what is to stop RASA from monopolizing the local medical field and jacking up prices?
1. I agree with Dana in the sense that this situation could go both ways. If Dr. G is only sending patients to the RASA hospital because she knows she will get some secondary gain out of it, then this is immoral. If the hospital is the better of all the options yes, she is acting morally. I do think it is natural for a person to recommend someone to do something if that person knows they will get something out of it, especially money.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think that RASA's profit sharing policy is morally acceptable. I think that if they are going to have some sort of incintive for amount of time in the OR, then it should be alotted to everyone equally.
3. Yes, I think that RASA's policy is working to the detriment of the patient because the doctors may be more apt to not give quality care since they know they are getting paid regardless.
I do not think Dr. G is acting immorally by referring her patients to RASA unless she has her own financial interest before her patients best interest. The case does not say she is doing so, but usually when money is involved people are put into these ethically questionable situations that might make them consider their pockets before anything else.
ReplyDeleteSince RASA is a for-profit hospital I believe their profit-sharing policy is morally acceptable. Any business that is for profit should have the right to give incentives for people to come to them.
Dr. G ins't acting inmorally by refer patients to the RASA hospital. If the RASA is just a nice as the other hospitals in the area i don't think it's such a bad thing. He could be using his profit sharing money to built homes in africa villiages so you can determine that his actions are not moral with the information that is being given. I think that the profit sharing in the RASA is morally acceptable. In fact most hospitals so some kind of gain-sharing were employees get some kind of bonus just for working there. I believe that it gives that hospital the oppurtunity to have the best staff possible because everyone is going to want to work there if they get that extra money just for working there. I don't think we have enough information to determine whether or not the hospital is being detrimental to it's patients. If they are charging more for there services, then yea, I would say that was wrong. But there profit sharing could benefit the patient because they are bring in the best staff possible to care for their patients.
ReplyDeleteDr. 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. 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.
ReplyDelete