Applying Consequential Theory Ethics in Medical Malpractice

728 Words2 Pages

According to Pozgar (2016), the consequential theory of ethics asserts that the ethical merits of any action can be determined by examining the outcome, or results, of that action. An action is considered ethical if the outcome is more positive or good, than negative or evil. Regarding the case of Smith v. Friends Hospital (PA Super, 2006), where the plaintiff alleged that she was beaten and sexually assaulted by hospital staff while she was hospitalized, the consequential theory ethics can seemingly be easily applied. Certainly, the physical and sexual assault of anyone would not be considered ethical behavior because it results in an evil outcome. Despite the intentions of the “attacker,” a person is harmed, and therefore this behavior …show more content…

Therefore, even if the facts show that these employees where somehow providing professionally approved care, i.e. physically restraining her during an out of control incident, the patient’s perception that she was being physically and sexually assaulted remains to be the outcome. Therefore, according to the consequential theory of ethics, this behavior would not be considered ethical. Therefore, an alternative action, or one that is not perceived to be threatening and harmful, must be executed. 2. Apply one ethical principle to your assigned case. You may use the definitions (Week 1) or obtain information from an article or book. Give specific details as to why this principle applies to your …show more content…

However, regardless if their actions were misperceived, they resulted in the plaintiff suffering a traumatic event, and therefore should be considered unethical. Can an action be both ethical and unethical at the same time? Apparently, they can be. There are some actions that help some while hurting others. Perhaps, the question of whether or not a behavior is considered ethical is a matter of perspective. Nonetheless, health care providers must strive to conduct themselves so that no harm is ever done to the client. In this situation, there was likely an action that could have been taken that both prevented harm to the plaintiff and was not perceived as harmful by the plaintiff

Open Document