Considering the case study entitled “Mark and Jeff and You,” Mark a public health education and promotion student is faced with an ethical dilemma, two years after Jeff a companion-patient he mentored and accompanied everywhere was sentenced to 25-years imprisonment. The moral dilemma involves two issues, namely, confidentiality and disclosure.
According to Health Education Code of Ethics, Article I, the responsibility to the public, Mark’s considerations towards talking to the state attorney would mean harm to both the state as well as a breach in his contract that prompted the standards of confidentiality, unless the state gave its consent that he would be involved in this case. Ethical standards mandate Mark needs to make the right decision in bringing justice to the family of the murdered woman. He decides to speak up on the events that led to the murder, the irresponsible behaviour of the state for releasing Jeff without supervision; then, he would have breached the standards of confidentiality, which might cause the country a lot of damage, while the family gets justice.
According to the standards of deontological ethical theory, it highlights that the moral actions need to be dependent on whether the work itself is acceptable or not under a set of policies rather than the consequences of the action. Since confidentiality one of the several rules that must be abided by healthcare professionals, it is for this reason that Mark needs not get attached to Jeff’s case. Mark performed his duties by providing the state with reports on Jeff’s progress. Since these updates are confidential and he had handed them over to the country, his involvement should not continue since the policies mandate him to do so.
Teleological moral doctrines are designed to emphasize the consequences of the actions relevant to human activities of being ethically right or wrong, depending on what is good and evil. According to an ethical egoism perspective, Mark has the moral obligation of distancing himself from Jeff’s ongoing case since he accomplished his professional duty. In return, he continues with his professional responsibilities. Next, using the eudaimonism ethical perspective can oblige Mark to cooperate with the state attorney to enable the general public to understand that it was the state’s negligence to ensure the family members benefit.
The best approach of deciding on this case scenario is to keep out of the case and only appear as a material witness in the case the courts decide to summon him. This decision is of great importance since it will not compromise Mark’s ethical reasoning as well as his professional duties. First, Mark did his job, and when he resigned, he issued a detailed report on Jeff’s mental condition, and it was evidence enough for the state attorney to use. Also, if he presented as a legal witness, it enables him not to breach the ethical codes of conduct since the state judicial system would protect him; thus, an assurance that his professional responsibilities will not be at risk.
Codes of ethics are an essential outline of procedures and guidelines that assists in shaping the behaviour and actions of employees. These sets of guides help personnel display professional conduct while performing their duties, especially in driving commercial honesty as well as integrity. The ethical codes of conduct assist in promoting shape organizational culture; thus, enhancing standards of loyalty, confidentiality, and trust among the personnel.