1. Do no harm. These words are frequently used to clearly and concisely summarize the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians. Johnson (2013) suggests the moral decision warrants compliance with a requirement for health care workers being mandated to take the flu shot. With these words, do no harm, this learner asks the question, is not the act of preventing harm to patients the point of the matter? Some would say, as the case study points out, no asserting an individual rights is the point of the matter. Consider the policeman who took an oath to protect and serve now sitting in his cruiser and arbitrarily makes a decision not to respond to a call all because of his personal views or beliefs of a neighborhood. Now consider the fireman who arrives to the scene of a burning building and he capriciously makes a decision about the burning building and the people therein are not worth the effort of saving. In both these cases the policeman and the fireman have put their self-interest ahead of the welfare of others. The community would be outraged and would likely call for their immediate termination or at best their resignation. When people voluntarily choose a career where the care for others is the primary role and responsibility, this leader would suggest the only right care givers and servants relinquish is the right to put your interests and needs before those of others.
Reference
Johnson, C. E. (2013). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
2. According to Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow fewer than half of U.S. and Australian health workers get flu shots every year, and only 55-65% of Canadian physicians are vaccinated (Johnson, 2015, p. 206). However they do so because of the same beliefs of other people. Some of the reasons being they don't like shots, it is not convenient to get them, they claim they seldom get sick, they don't think the injections are effective, or they believe the vaccine will make them ill (Johnson, 2015, p. 206).
One does not have to look far to see that the basic human rights of the health workers are being violated. It is unethical for leaders, or managers, to impose their personal beliefs, or standards on their workers who does not share the same belief system. When instructing workers leaders are expected to practice neutrality, by keeping their personal beliefs and morals, out of the picture. And allowing each worker to make their own decision about receiving flu-shots. Furthermore effective leaders do not coerce their workers with threats of job loss to comply. This strategy has proven to be ineffective and the main reason employees leave their jobs prematurely.
The America we live in today is a multi-cultural society, so leaders are to be first aware of their own cultural self and learned assumptions, some of which may be biased. To be effective leaders must learn cultural pluralism, a perspective that recognizes the complexity of cultures and values the diversity of beliefs and values (Corey, Corey, &Callanan, 2011, p. 118). To operate as if all our workers are the same is not in accord with reality and this can result in, un-ethical, in-effective, leadership (Corey, Corey, &Callanan, 2011, p. 118). Again it is unethical for leaders to coerce, or impose, their beliefs on their workers. Because by doing so they are preventing the employee from being autonomous, and choosing his or her own way. Furthermore an Ontario labor board ruled that mandatory flu shots violated the rights of the health workers. And others were concerned that mandatory programs would spread from the health care sector into other areas of society or the whole population. And saw it as encroachment on their liberties, or freedom, (Johnson, 2015, p. 207).
Reference
Johnson, C. E., (2015) Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow
George Fox University Fifth edition Retrieved from:
https://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/sage/2013/meeting-the-ethical-challenges-of-leadership_ebook_5e.php
Corey, G. Corey, M S. &Callanan, P (2011) Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions Belmont, CA USA: Brooks/Cole
3. I love this topic and the subsequent discourse. I suggest when the rule was adopted makes a difference. If the nurse was hired and the rule changed, then he/she has the right to refuse. However, if the rule was in effect prior to employment, then accepting employment was implied agreement to follow the rules.Thoughts?
4. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and He will make your paths straight (Prov 3 5-6).Reflecting on the last seven (7) weeks in this course, what are the three (3) most important lessons you learned? And, what are three (3) concepts that are not completely clear in your mind?
5. Please watch this video. We spoke about truth versus relativism. This video shows how difficult people have calling things right or wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho
Thoughts??