Q8. Case Study

Sneha is a Senior Manager working for a big reputed hospital chain in a mid-sized city. She has been made in-charge of the new super speciality center that the hospital is building with state-of-the art equipment and world class medical facilities. The building has been reconstructed and she is starting the process of procurement for various equipment and machines. As the head of the committee responsible for procurement, she has invited bids from all the interested reputed vendors dealing in medical equipment. She notices that her brother, who is a well-known supplier in this domain, has also sent his expression of interest. Since the hospital is privately owned, it is not mandatory for her to select only the lower bidder. Also, she is aware that her brother's company has been facing some financial difficulties and a big supply order will help him recover. At the same time, allocating the contract to her brother might bring charges of favouritism against her and tarnish her image. The hospital management trusts her fully and would support any decision of hers.

1. What should be Sneha's course of action ?
2. How would she justify what she chooses to do ?
3. In this case, how is medical ethics compromised with vested personal interest ? (Answer in 250 words)

Introduction

This case study presents a classic conflict of interest scenario involving Sneha, a Senior Manager tasked with procuring equipment for a new hospital center. She faces a moral and ethical dilemma: favor her brother's company, which is struggling financially, or maintain transparency and fairness in procurement. Her decision has implications for her reputation, professional integrity, and medical ethics.

Body

Stakeholders involved:

1. Sneha: Senior Manager and head of the procurement committee, responsible for decision-making.
2. Sneha’s brother: A supplier whose financial future depends on winning the contract.
3. Hospital management: Trusts Sneha's judgment and relies on her for an ethical decision.
4. Other bidders: Reputed vendors who expect a fair selection process.
5. Patients: Indirect stakeholders, as the quality of equipment impacts their healthcare.
6. Public: The community whose trust is at stake due to potential favoritism in procurement.

(a) What should be Sneha's course of action?

Sneha’s ideal course of action should be to recuse herself from the procurement process, given her conflict of interest. She must inform the hospital management of her brother’s involvement and request to hand over decision-making responsibility to another neutral member of the procurement committee.

Reasons to reject other courses of action:

1. Awarding the contract to her brother: This would create an appearance of favoritism and potentially tarnish her reputation. It goes against deontological ethics (Kant’s theory), which emphasizes duty and adherence to rules without considering outcomes.
2. Rejecting her brother’s bid solely to avoid suspicion: This would be unfair if his bid is competitive, violating principles of fairness and justice outlined in Rawls’ theory of justice.

By recusing herself, Sneha would ensure that the process remains transparent and ethical, protecting her reputation and maintaining fairness to all parties involved.

(b) How would she justify what she chooses to do?

Sneha can justify her recusal by citing conflict of interest. She must explain that, while she has no intention of favoritism, her family connection could lead to perceptions of bias, which would undermine the integrity of the process. This aligns with the utilitarian principle of ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number, as it maintains trust in the procurement process and prevents ethical lapses. Additionally, by promoting transparency, she would uphold the virtue ethics of honesty and fairness, key traits expected of a leader in a healthcare setting.

(c) How is medical ethics compromised with vested personal interest?

Medical ethics prioritizes patient care, transparency, and public trust. If Sneha were to prioritize personal interests over professional duties, it could compromise the integrity of the hospital and affect patient care. Selecting a vendor based on personal benefit rather than merit can lead to suboptimal equipment procurement, potentially impacting the quality of medical services provided. Hippocratic ethics, which emphasize "do no harm," would be violated if patients were indirectly harmed by equipment that may not be of the highest quality. Aristotle’s virtue ethics would suggest that by allowing vested interests to influence decisions, Sneha would act against virtues such as integrity, justice, and responsibility, which are crucial in medical and public service fields.

Sneha should prioritize transparency and fairness by recusing herself from the decision-making process. This would align with ethical theories and principles, ensure that medical ethics are upheld, and preserve public trust in the institution. A strong ethical foundation in decision-making ensures the long-term sustainability of public and professional trust, which is vital in the healthcare sector.

‍

Instant Mains Evaluation with SuperKalam

✅ Now that you have gone through the model answer, try practicing and writing it in your own words and evaluate it instantly with SuperKalam here - Evaluate Mains Answer instantly

‍

✅ Download Model Answer PDF for complete UPSC Mains 2024 GS4 Paper with analysis here - Download GS4 Model Answers