Reference no: EM133683924

Discussion

Ethics are moral values and principles that guide behavior, while legality are the governmental laws and regulations that are in place to create and maintain a functioning society. There may be an overlap between ethics and legality; many laws and regulations are made to mirror ethical behavior. Examples include the prohibition and the ramifications of grossly negligent behavior such as involuntary manslaughter in a healthcare setting. However, there may also be areas where legality and ethics do not overlap. An example would be the controversy over abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization cited as 97 U.S. (2022) (No. 19-1392), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, allowing the individual states to determine its legality (Kaufman & Mayall, 2023). The topic remains a divisive issue. Thus, in states where abortion rights are unrestricted, abortion opponents are faced with a situation where ethics supersedes legality. Conversely, in states where abortion rights are restricted, abortion advocates are faced with a situation where legality supersedes ethics.

An example of a violation of legality in healthcare is the case against Dr. Conrad Murray in 2011 (Palacio, 2012). Dr. Murray was accused of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson by providing propofol which resulted in an overdose. In this case, the defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and was given a four-year prison sentence.

An example of a violation of ethics in healthcare is the case of Doe vs. Roe in New York (Blake, 2011). The case involved a patient suing their psychiatrist for breach of confidentiality after the doctor published a book which, though did not include names, included enough information for the patient's identity to be revealed. This revelation could be deemed breach of the ethical duties of fidelity - by failing to maintain an implied promise of confidentiality, non-maleficence as the patient was harmed due to their personal information being revealed, autonomy - as the patient was not afforded the opportunity control their private information, and justice - as the patient's right to confidentiality was not respected. In this case, the court ruled for the plaintiff who was awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages, while the defendant was prohibited from additional distribution of the book.