SAD Analysis
Juliana Reyes is faced with both and ethical dilemma which cuts across the ethical subscriptions of being a reporter, her duty to the public and the consideration of the rights of a private citizen. The primary objective of a media reporter is to investigate anomalies in the society and subject them to the public with the intention to inform, warn, advocate and advise on some of the issues in the society. the aspect of public health and competent working relations between the public and health practitioners is an aspect which requires high levels of integrity and professionalism, because they deal with the lives of people and the overall health of the public. Failure to report the truth or compromising facts about poor performance in a healthcare facility to serve a few individuals can create a ripple effect on the society, where it risks the lives of the people who depend the facility for treatment and wellbeing. This could end up leading to loss of many lives, on an aspect which can be exposed and rectified.
However, people in the society are entitled to their privacy and are legally protected by the law. Someone has to have the approval of the persons concerned to air or put their lives in the public, without which it can be termed as violation or infringement of the rights of the person, which is an offence by law. However, withdrawing vital information for the greater good to the public can be termed as dishonesty and sadistic, which can be termed as collusion with the said parties to cause harm and distress to the public. Therefore, this calls for ethical and moral concern on the priorities which should be taken on issues which can save the lives of people and reassure the public of their wellbeing when they visit public health facilities in the region. In this case, Juliana has to consider the following principles in making of her decision regarding the matter: professionalism, public trust, law and social duty or responsibility.
Analysis
Professionalism: The dissemination of truth to the public is the primary objective of the media, and the concern is; would Juliana live with guilt of witnessing more people die because she withheld vital information?
Public trust: the society expects the media to report the truth as it is, and potential patients to the hospital could be some of the people who are avid followers of her program, however, the family of the victim wants the information withheld. Therefore, would Juliana betray the trust of the public for the interest of one person?
The law: every citizen has a right to privacy and this includes protection from the media. Therefore, should Juliana violate the rights of Mason and his family to air an anomaly in the health care system for the greater good of the society?
Social duty and responsibility: the media is the watchdog of the society has a responsibility to inform the public on the ills which are affecting the society. therefore, who should Juliana be loyal to, the public in which the law is made for or the law which is made for the public?
Theories
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
The consequences of Juliana reporting the facts about the healthcare facility should inform the decision which she would make concerning the matter. There are two probable consequences one is; being sued for violation or rights of a private citizen if she reports the truth, which could also lead to the problems in the health facility being solved or having more people continuing to die or committing suicide after withdrawing the facts of the case. In this case, Juliana should look into the interests of the larger society and her actions should be based on greater good. However, much it is not ethical to use the suicide case as a point to start with, but is should be used as an example of consequence of poor service delivery by the facility. In this case, the whole problem of less hospital beds and suicide cases should be reported entirely, as they are related.
Kant
Following the moral principle of the Kant, Juliana should tell the truth, because it is the best moral thing to do between choices. The truth can release someone from the guilt of being responsible for the consequences of lying or withdrawing it. In this case, public interest should be considered, and she should go on and publish the story. Also, willingly withholding the truth can lead to greater social backlash to the media house, which can lead to loss of viewership and sponsorship.
Aristotle
If Juliana was to take the Aristotle’s Golden Mean approach where she should approach Mr. Mason’s widow and convince her to grant permission to use Mason’s case to expose the healthcare facility on poor delivery of services leading to preventable deaths. She should try to convince the family the Mr. Mason’s death can be used to put an end to the vice, where no other family should face what they are facing because of negligence by the hospital and violation of privileges of a citizen, that is having access to good health care. This is because it is necessary to have the case of Mr. mason included into the Tv Program because it would show the public the damage done by the facility. In this case, Juliana should convince the family to consider the lives of other patients in the hospital, the family, friends or other citizens who will eventually seek the hospital for treatment and the withholding of the fact that the hospital offers substandard services to patients.
Decision
The Aristotelian approach is most applicable here, as it seeks to address both aspects of the moral dilemma. In this case, Mr. Mason’s widow is informed of the consequences of withholding the fact and how it would harm the public, and therefore, should give consent to the use of Mr. Mason’s case to expose the truth about the poor service delivery in the healthcare facility. This in the long run, would lead to protection of both private and public interest, while delivering the primary objective to the society, as a journalist, or the media house.
Commentaires