Ethical Dilemmas In Health Care
In modern day, health care professionals are often faced with medical decisions that affect clients seeking treatment. They are faced with situations on whether to continue care, determining the direction of care, and even deciding whom they should treat. Often, these decisions present an ethical dilemma. According to McConnell (2014), the features of a moral dilemma consist of a situation where the
$$$$agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do). ( McConnell, 2014, line 27-30 )
Thomas Wells was serving a sentence for murder in state prison when he managed to escape. He was attempting to rob a bank, but instead found himself in a brawl with law enforcement, which injured his right arm and caused nerve damage. Thomas Wells was re-institutionalized after he received emergency care and is now seeking rehabilitative care in the locked unit at the hospital. He wants to regain function of his arm.
Sharon Gomez is an occupational therapist that was assigned to the unit, receives the referral, and determines that Mr. Wells needs occupational therapy services and that she …show more content…
can provide services with undue risk to herself. She checked with security and inquired about the safeguards in place. These safeguards included two police officers that were assigned to be with Thomas Wells at all times, Thomas Wells’s legs chained, and the rehabilitation service would take place in a locked unit. Nancy Bonham is the OT supervisor and disapproves the treatment. She wants Sharon to refuse the referral and gives several reasons including administration protocol, wasted resources, and also feels he doesn’t deserve rehabilitation. Sharon protests two times, the first she states that she feels an ethical obligation to accept the referral, the second time she tries to protest, but is notified by Nancy that if she fails to follow her directive, a disciplinary report will be filed against her.
Sharon leaves the meeting with a knot in her stomach. Nancy and Sharon have worked together for five years and have a good relationship. As presented, the moral ethical dilemma leaves Sharon with two choices: treating the prisoner or following administration protocol.
Step 1 - Attentive
As the facts stated above Mr. Wells escaped prison where he was serving a sentence for murder. Mr. Wells is seeking rehabilitative care to regain function in his right arm. Sharon is an occupational therapist that was assigned to the unit and received the referral. Nancy is the occupational therapy supervisor and disapproves the treatment. She wants Sharon to refuse the referral. Sharon is the main decision maker in this dilemma and she needs to determine whether she obeys her supervisor or follows her personal ethics.
Step 2 - Intelligent
Every ethical dilemma involves more than just one or two people (EthicsGame | Online Ethics Curriculum Tools for Higher Education, n.d.).
In ethical decision making, people who may be affected by decisions are called stakeholders. In this situation, there are primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders. Primary stakeholder who are directly involved in the situation include Sharon, Mr. Wells and Nancy. Secondary stakeholders not directly involved in the situation but have responsibilities to the stakeholders which include clients, law enforcement, and staff within the Large Urban Hospital Trauma Center. The tertiary stakeholder is the general
public.
The outcome of this situation depends on the actions of the stakeholders and what values are important to them. Sharon feels she needs to treat the patient based on her duty as an occupational therapist. She wants to follow ethics and her gut intuition. Values important to Sharon might include altruism, equality, freedom, justice, dignity, truth and prudence. Sharon wants to respect the client without judging his former criminal career. On the other hand, reasons Sharon might hesitate treating the patient include developing a bad reputation by directly disobeying her supervisor, receiving a disciplinary report on her personal profile, and ruining her relationship with her supervisor. Another reason Sharon might choose not to treat the patient is that her safety could be put in jeopardy. However, Sharon did check the safety guards in place before accepting the referral.
Nancy as a supervisor does not want to treat the patient. Nancy may possess values such as altruism, prudence, and justice. Values such as these prioritize the welfare of others, discipline through reason as well as upholding legal and moral principles. Nancy might consider rehabilitating Mr. Wells as causing harm to her employees, clients, and general public, if he escapes. She also believes that by treating Mr. Wells, this may be a waste of resources as she wants to uphold her moral values to society.
Mr. Wells as a client wants to receive rehabilitation services to regain function in his injured arm. Values important to him include dignity, freedom,and equality. Mr. Wells wants to be respected as an individual and felt as if he is important.
Secondary stakeholders are those who are not directly involved in the situation, but are affected by the effort and actions of the company. The secondary stakeholder in this case is the Large Urban Hospital Trauma Center. Values pertinent to the secondary stakeholders include dignity and justice. As a hospital, common goals include providing fair and equal treatment to all. As an institution, the hospital views each patient as unique and valuable. A sense of community is developed by advocating and attuning treatment to those who are more vulnerable, or less advantaged.
The tertiary stakeholders in this situation is the general public in the vicinity. They are external members who neither make decisions nor benefit instantly from the outcome of the dilemma, but even so have the capability to mold and exploit business outcomes with Large Urban Hospital Trauma Center (Luther, n.d). One value the general public may have in common is safety relating to the treatment of a prisoner in their area.
Step 3 - Reasonable
To evaluate the ethical dilemma, the situation will be assessed from different viewpoints in order to be reasonable and support each conclusion or opinion. In this case, we will be evaluating the ethical dilemma by applying different perspectives of the ethical lens to draw a conclusion.
Results Lens
The results lens focuses on what option will produce the most good and do the least harm. According to Ethics at a Glance (n.d.), the principle of utility is defined as actions that are right if they produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. With this type of consideration, there is a moral cost/benefit analysis. The option that will make the most stakeholders happiest is if Sharon Gomez does not take the referral and does not treat Mr. Wells. The overall good in this lens is to protect society from criminal behavior and the consequences of rehabilitating an individual to return to prior occupation that involves criminal activity. However the cost analysis includes sacrificing an individual’s basic rights of medical treatment.
Relationships Lens
Values that are important in the relationship lens include equality and rationality. Equality includes values such as fairness, justice, unselfishness and balance. Rationality includes values such as loyalty, faithfulness, consistency and entitlement. Overall, this lens requires that there is equal opportunity for all and that being fair is important (Ethics at a Glance, n.d.). Ethical fundamental liberties should be provided to all, and those who do not have power or access to resources should receive care.
Using the relationship lens and emphasizing equality, Sharon Gomez is seeking out services for the prisoner to try to provide a fair and equal opportunity to receive care. Thomas Wells can be thought of as a person of the community, thus receiving therapy will support community growth and function. Even though this person is in prison, they are still human and are entitled to personal rights, and should not have to endure suffering, as stated in the constitution (CITE).
Another option for this lens focuses on rationality. Nancy Bonham believes that by refusing treatment to Thomas Wells is being fair because she doesn’t believe he deserves treatment due to his past. Her rationale may also be that there is no point of Thomas Wells receiving treatment if he will possibly receive capital punishment.
Reputation Lens
The reputation lens is focused on values such as equality and sensibility. This lens is based off virtue ethics and focuses on qualities that develop a strong character and that a good citizen should possess (Ethics at a Glance, n.d; EthicsGame, n.d.). These four main virtues are integrity, courage, justice and civility Integrity virtue is involved with truth telling to avoid a flawed system. Courage is possessing skills to speak up in a problematic situation. Justice requires overlooking personal privilege for a healthy community. Civility deals with respecting others with dignity (Ethics at a Glance, n.d.). The needs of the community are concentrated through the belief of compassion and sensibility. Sharon Gomez will develop a sound character if she chooses this lens because she follows her gut intuition, her motive, and embraces the core values such as altruism, equality, justice.
Rights/Responsibilities Lens
The Rights and Responsibility lens is based off the theory of Deontology; placing emphasis on duties relating to each other. In this lens autonomy and rationality are the main values of focus. Sharon has several duties as an OT in this case. In correspondence to the prisoner, Sharon has the duty to treat, but in response to Sharon’s supervisor it is her duty to refuse the treatment as a sign of respect for company protocol.
Nancy's duties as a supervisor include fidelity to the hospital by not wasting resources when a client is believed that they cannot be rehabilitated and to protect the general public from a convict. Thomas Wells must fulfill his duties by serving his sentence.
Step 4 - Responsible
We believe the best option to address the situation is through the reputation lens. This lens includes values such as integrity, courage, justice, and civility (Ethics at a Glance, n.d.). In the AOTA Code of Ethics (2015), the Core Values underlines and frames this ethical dilemma. Sharon develops a sound character because she follows her gut intuition, her motive, and embraces the core values such as altruism, equality, justice. Aristotle believes that excellence is both a development of thought and character and “excellence of character results from habit” (Aristotle, trans. 2006, p2, line 15).
Sharon’s knots in her stomach indicates she has a gut intuition and that she has a visceral reaction to a moral injustice. Developing a gut intuition, often happens over time when the learning process becomes internalized. Therefore, her external behaviors mirror her gut intuition (McCammon, Brody, 2012). Aristotle differentiates the virtues as something that is not natural, because they are habits; but also not unnatural, because we are receptive to them. “...We acquire the virtues by having previously exercised them, as also in the case of skills. For what we learn to do, we learn by doing” (Aristotle, trans. 2006, p2, Line 32-34). For Sharon, as an occupational therapist, habits refer to “a specific, automatic behaviors; that can be useful, dominating, or impoverished” (AOTA, 2014). This habituation process might be due to the professional internalization of the AOTA Code of Ethics. Therefore, values that describe justice, equality, and altruism are probably more internalized than following the directives of her supervisor.
Another reason this visceral reaction probably happened was because Sharon witnessed her supervisor make an immoral decision, according to Sharon’s internalized virtues. When witnessing someone with authority make an immoral decision in a high stakes situation, this has been described by Jonathon Shay as a “model of moral injury” (Shay, 2012, p.59). Shay’s model was created in the context of war, however the outcomes are similar to what Sharon might experience, such as confronting the implicit change in her if she follows her supervisor’s directives. Shay states that it “deteriorates their character, their ideals, ambitions, and attachments begin to shrink and change” (Shay 2012, p.59). Therefore, also concluding that Sharon might undergo a sense of identity loss and a strain on her character, if she doesn’t follow her gut intuition. For Aristotle, when speaking about the virtue of character, he acknowledges that this virtue encompasses both feelings and actions and goes on to say “to feel such things when one should, and about the things one should, and in relation to the people one should… is the mean and the best, which belongs to a virtue” (Aristotle, trans. 2006, p9, line 21-24).
Within the AOTA Code of Ethics, Sharon realizes the disparities that Thomas Wells endures is a case of bias on Nancy’s part. The strive for equality and sensibility is important for this lens. AOTA’s Code of Ethics (2015) states that “equality refers to promoting fairness in interactions with others” (AOTA, 2014, p2). Therefore, equality informs Sharon’s character and she believes that one should not judge who is worthy of receiving medical treatment.
When viewing this through the value of altruism, Sharon places the needs of Thomas Wells over her own needs. She recognizes that safeguards are in place, but there is still a possibility that Thomas Wells could cause Sharon bodily harm. However, Sharon understands this, and still believes that as an occupational therapist she can offer him her services.
The last virtue, we chose to highlight was justice. Justice is “a state in which specific communities and society as a whole are organized and structured such that all members can function, flourish, and live a satisfactory life” (AOTA, 2014, p2). Using justice, all members include the client, and that he still deserves a just life while he is alive.
According to the United States Constitution Amendment VIII, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (cite) As a Citizen of the United States Thomas Wells is entitled to basic rights such as health care. Restrictions of such rights may cause trouble to Mr. Wells upon reentry into the community and can be thought of as unlawful. When treatment is not cruelly withheld, but is considered improper or negligent, it can be considered medical malpractice (Medical Malpractice, 2008).
Nancy Bonham’s actions to deny treatment to a prisoner does not comply within the reputation lens. Employing the same virtues, she is overlooking the needs of others and not treating other in a just manner.
In conclusion, when employing the reputation lens, Sharon’s decision might not be easy. In this moral dilemma, either outcome, loss of self and character or loss of the relationship with her supervisor, is not ideal. With this is mind, Sharon’s character is being challenged in this situation, and to employ this lens requires her to treat Thomas Wells.
Step 5 - Reflective
Through evaluation of this case we learned how to be more empathic towards each stakeholder, how to be more sensitive toward ethical issues and how to view a situation differently from multiple standpoints. It is important to recognize when different values are in conflict even when one of those values are not your own. We recognized it is important to have reason behind an informative decision. It is also imperative to be attentive by gathering all the facts, being intelligent about a situation by identifying the main ethical dilemma present and being reasonable by evaluating the case through different lenses to weigh what values and virtues are most important. In conclusion, we learned that ethical dilemmas such as these not only comprise ethics, but can affect personal values such as being a good citizen in a community and affect a community as a whole. There is no right or wrong answer, but more a “supported” correct answer.
$$$$agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do). ( McConnell, 2014, line 27-30 )
Thomas Wells was serving a sentence for murder in state prison when he managed to escape. He was attempting to rob a bank, but instead found himself in a brawl with law enforcement, which injured his right arm and caused nerve damage. Thomas Wells was re-institutionalized after he received emergency care and is now seeking rehabilitative care in the locked unit at the hospital. He wants to regain function of his arm.
Sharon Gomez is an occupational therapist that was assigned to the unit, receives the referral, and determines that Mr. Wells needs occupational therapy services and that she …show more content…
can provide services with undue risk to herself. She checked with security and inquired about the safeguards in place. These safeguards included two police officers that were assigned to be with Thomas Wells at all times, Thomas Wells’s legs chained, and the rehabilitation service would take place in a locked unit. Nancy Bonham is the OT supervisor and disapproves the treatment. She wants Sharon to refuse the referral and gives several reasons including administration protocol, wasted resources, and also feels he doesn’t deserve rehabilitation. Sharon protests two times, the first she states that she feels an ethical obligation to accept the referral, the second time she tries to protest, but is notified by Nancy that if she fails to follow her directive, a disciplinary report will be filed against her.
Sharon leaves the meeting with a knot in her stomach. Nancy and Sharon have worked together for five years and have a good relationship. As presented, the moral ethical dilemma leaves Sharon with two choices: treating the prisoner or following administration protocol.
Step 1 - Attentive
As the facts stated above Mr. Wells escaped prison where he was serving a sentence for murder. Mr. Wells is seeking rehabilitative care to regain function in his right arm. Sharon is an occupational therapist that was assigned to the unit and received the referral. Nancy is the occupational therapy supervisor and disapproves the treatment. She wants Sharon to refuse the referral. Sharon is the main decision maker in this dilemma and she needs to determine whether she obeys her supervisor or follows her personal ethics.
Step 2 - Intelligent
Every ethical dilemma involves more than just one or two people (EthicsGame | Online Ethics Curriculum Tools for Higher Education, n.d.).
In ethical decision making, people who may be affected by decisions are called stakeholders. In this situation, there are primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders. Primary stakeholder who are directly involved in the situation include Sharon, Mr. Wells and Nancy. Secondary stakeholders not directly involved in the situation but have responsibilities to the stakeholders which include clients, law enforcement, and staff within the Large Urban Hospital Trauma Center. The tertiary stakeholder is the general
public.
The outcome of this situation depends on the actions of the stakeholders and what values are important to them. Sharon feels she needs to treat the patient based on her duty as an occupational therapist. She wants to follow ethics and her gut intuition. Values important to Sharon might include altruism, equality, freedom, justice, dignity, truth and prudence. Sharon wants to respect the client without judging his former criminal career. On the other hand, reasons Sharon might hesitate treating the patient include developing a bad reputation by directly disobeying her supervisor, receiving a disciplinary report on her personal profile, and ruining her relationship with her supervisor. Another reason Sharon might choose not to treat the patient is that her safety could be put in jeopardy. However, Sharon did check the safety guards in place before accepting the referral.
Nancy as a supervisor does not want to treat the patient. Nancy may possess values such as altruism, prudence, and justice. Values such as these prioritize the welfare of others, discipline through reason as well as upholding legal and moral principles. Nancy might consider rehabilitating Mr. Wells as causing harm to her employees, clients, and general public, if he escapes. She also believes that by treating Mr. Wells, this may be a waste of resources as she wants to uphold her moral values to society.
Mr. Wells as a client wants to receive rehabilitation services to regain function in his injured arm. Values important to him include dignity, freedom,and equality. Mr. Wells wants to be respected as an individual and felt as if he is important.
Secondary stakeholders are those who are not directly involved in the situation, but are affected by the effort and actions of the company. The secondary stakeholder in this case is the Large Urban Hospital Trauma Center. Values pertinent to the secondary stakeholders include dignity and justice. As a hospital, common goals include providing fair and equal treatment to all. As an institution, the hospital views each patient as unique and valuable. A sense of community is developed by advocating and attuning treatment to those who are more vulnerable, or less advantaged.
The tertiary stakeholders in this situation is the general public in the vicinity. They are external members who neither make decisions nor benefit instantly from the outcome of the dilemma, but even so have the capability to mold and exploit business outcomes with Large Urban Hospital Trauma Center (Luther, n.d). One value the general public may have in common is safety relating to the treatment of a prisoner in their area.
Step 3 - Reasonable
To evaluate the ethical dilemma, the situation will be assessed from different viewpoints in order to be reasonable and support each conclusion or opinion. In this case, we will be evaluating the ethical dilemma by applying different perspectives of the ethical lens to draw a conclusion.
Results Lens
The results lens focuses on what option will produce the most good and do the least harm. According to Ethics at a Glance (n.d.), the principle of utility is defined as actions that are right if they produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. With this type of consideration, there is a moral cost/benefit analysis. The option that will make the most stakeholders happiest is if Sharon Gomez does not take the referral and does not treat Mr. Wells. The overall good in this lens is to protect society from criminal behavior and the consequences of rehabilitating an individual to return to prior occupation that involves criminal activity. However the cost analysis includes sacrificing an individual’s basic rights of medical treatment.
Relationships Lens
Values that are important in the relationship lens include equality and rationality. Equality includes values such as fairness, justice, unselfishness and balance. Rationality includes values such as loyalty, faithfulness, consistency and entitlement. Overall, this lens requires that there is equal opportunity for all and that being fair is important (Ethics at a Glance, n.d.). Ethical fundamental liberties should be provided to all, and those who do not have power or access to resources should receive care.
Using the relationship lens and emphasizing equality, Sharon Gomez is seeking out services for the prisoner to try to provide a fair and equal opportunity to receive care. Thomas Wells can be thought of as a person of the community, thus receiving therapy will support community growth and function. Even though this person is in prison, they are still human and are entitled to personal rights, and should not have to endure suffering, as stated in the constitution (CITE).
Another option for this lens focuses on rationality. Nancy Bonham believes that by refusing treatment to Thomas Wells is being fair because she doesn’t believe he deserves treatment due to his past. Her rationale may also be that there is no point of Thomas Wells receiving treatment if he will possibly receive capital punishment.
Reputation Lens
The reputation lens is focused on values such as equality and sensibility. This lens is based off virtue ethics and focuses on qualities that develop a strong character and that a good citizen should possess (Ethics at a Glance, n.d; EthicsGame, n.d.). These four main virtues are integrity, courage, justice and civility Integrity virtue is involved with truth telling to avoid a flawed system. Courage is possessing skills to speak up in a problematic situation. Justice requires overlooking personal privilege for a healthy community. Civility deals with respecting others with dignity (Ethics at a Glance, n.d.). The needs of the community are concentrated through the belief of compassion and sensibility. Sharon Gomez will develop a sound character if she chooses this lens because she follows her gut intuition, her motive, and embraces the core values such as altruism, equality, justice.
Rights/Responsibilities Lens
The Rights and Responsibility lens is based off the theory of Deontology; placing emphasis on duties relating to each other. In this lens autonomy and rationality are the main values of focus. Sharon has several duties as an OT in this case. In correspondence to the prisoner, Sharon has the duty to treat, but in response to Sharon’s supervisor it is her duty to refuse the treatment as a sign of respect for company protocol.
Nancy's duties as a supervisor include fidelity to the hospital by not wasting resources when a client is believed that they cannot be rehabilitated and to protect the general public from a convict. Thomas Wells must fulfill his duties by serving his sentence.
Step 4 - Responsible
We believe the best option to address the situation is through the reputation lens. This lens includes values such as integrity, courage, justice, and civility (Ethics at a Glance, n.d.). In the AOTA Code of Ethics (2015), the Core Values underlines and frames this ethical dilemma. Sharon develops a sound character because she follows her gut intuition, her motive, and embraces the core values such as altruism, equality, justice. Aristotle believes that excellence is both a development of thought and character and “excellence of character results from habit” (Aristotle, trans. 2006, p2, line 15).
Sharon’s knots in her stomach indicates she has a gut intuition and that she has a visceral reaction to a moral injustice. Developing a gut intuition, often happens over time when the learning process becomes internalized. Therefore, her external behaviors mirror her gut intuition (McCammon, Brody, 2012). Aristotle differentiates the virtues as something that is not natural, because they are habits; but also not unnatural, because we are receptive to them. “...We acquire the virtues by having previously exercised them, as also in the case of skills. For what we learn to do, we learn by doing” (Aristotle, trans. 2006, p2, Line 32-34). For Sharon, as an occupational therapist, habits refer to “a specific, automatic behaviors; that can be useful, dominating, or impoverished” (AOTA, 2014). This habituation process might be due to the professional internalization of the AOTA Code of Ethics. Therefore, values that describe justice, equality, and altruism are probably more internalized than following the directives of her supervisor.
Another reason this visceral reaction probably happened was because Sharon witnessed her supervisor make an immoral decision, according to Sharon’s internalized virtues. When witnessing someone with authority make an immoral decision in a high stakes situation, this has been described by Jonathon Shay as a “model of moral injury” (Shay, 2012, p.59). Shay’s model was created in the context of war, however the outcomes are similar to what Sharon might experience, such as confronting the implicit change in her if she follows her supervisor’s directives. Shay states that it “deteriorates their character, their ideals, ambitions, and attachments begin to shrink and change” (Shay 2012, p.59). Therefore, also concluding that Sharon might undergo a sense of identity loss and a strain on her character, if she doesn’t follow her gut intuition. For Aristotle, when speaking about the virtue of character, he acknowledges that this virtue encompasses both feelings and actions and goes on to say “to feel such things when one should, and about the things one should, and in relation to the people one should… is the mean and the best, which belongs to a virtue” (Aristotle, trans. 2006, p9, line 21-24).
Within the AOTA Code of Ethics, Sharon realizes the disparities that Thomas Wells endures is a case of bias on Nancy’s part. The strive for equality and sensibility is important for this lens. AOTA’s Code of Ethics (2015) states that “equality refers to promoting fairness in interactions with others” (AOTA, 2014, p2). Therefore, equality informs Sharon’s character and she believes that one should not judge who is worthy of receiving medical treatment.
When viewing this through the value of altruism, Sharon places the needs of Thomas Wells over her own needs. She recognizes that safeguards are in place, but there is still a possibility that Thomas Wells could cause Sharon bodily harm. However, Sharon understands this, and still believes that as an occupational therapist she can offer him her services.
The last virtue, we chose to highlight was justice. Justice is “a state in which specific communities and society as a whole are organized and structured such that all members can function, flourish, and live a satisfactory life” (AOTA, 2014, p2). Using justice, all members include the client, and that he still deserves a just life while he is alive.
According to the United States Constitution Amendment VIII, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (cite) As a Citizen of the United States Thomas Wells is entitled to basic rights such as health care. Restrictions of such rights may cause trouble to Mr. Wells upon reentry into the community and can be thought of as unlawful. When treatment is not cruelly withheld, but is considered improper or negligent, it can be considered medical malpractice (Medical Malpractice, 2008).
Nancy Bonham’s actions to deny treatment to a prisoner does not comply within the reputation lens. Employing the same virtues, she is overlooking the needs of others and not treating other in a just manner.
In conclusion, when employing the reputation lens, Sharon’s decision might not be easy. In this moral dilemma, either outcome, loss of self and character or loss of the relationship with her supervisor, is not ideal. With this is mind, Sharon’s character is being challenged in this situation, and to employ this lens requires her to treat Thomas Wells.
Step 5 - Reflective
Through evaluation of this case we learned how to be more empathic towards each stakeholder, how to be more sensitive toward ethical issues and how to view a situation differently from multiple standpoints. It is important to recognize when different values are in conflict even when one of those values are not your own. We recognized it is important to have reason behind an informative decision. It is also imperative to be attentive by gathering all the facts, being intelligent about a situation by identifying the main ethical dilemma present and being reasonable by evaluating the case through different lenses to weigh what values and virtues are most important. In conclusion, we learned that ethical dilemmas such as these not only comprise ethics, but can affect personal values such as being a good citizen in a community and affect a community as a whole. There is no right or wrong answer, but more a “supported” correct answer.