Reference no: EM131743907

Case Scenario: STANDARDS OF ETHICS AND MORAL COMMITMENT

A physician received a letter from a hospital informing him that his clinical privileges at the hospital had been summarily suspended. The medical executive committee reviewed the suspension and recommended that it be upheld. The hospital board ultimately revoked the physician's staff privileges. The physician received a hearing before a fair hearing panel, which recommended that he be reinstated. The board, however, upheld the revocation. The physician alleged, among other things, wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants argued that the courts do not have jurisdiction to review staffing decisions made by private, nonprofit hospitals. The Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division II, found that judicial tribunals are not equipped to review the action of hospital boards in selecting or refusing to appoint physicians to their medical staffs. The authorities of hospitals endeavor to serve in the best possible manner the sick and the afflicted. Not all professionals have identical ability, competence, experience, character, and standards of ethics. The mere fact that a physician is licensed to practice a profession does not justify any inference beyond the conclusion that a physician has met the minimum requirements for that purpose. Without regard to the absence of any legal liability, the hospital in granting a physician privileges to practice in its facilities extends a moral or official approval to him in the eyes of the public. Not all professionals have personalities that enable them to work in harmony with others, and to inspire confidence in their peers and in patients. Courts should not substitute their evaluation in such matters. It is the board, not the court, that is charged with the responsibility of providing a competent staff of physicians. The board has chosen to rely on the advice of its medical staff, and the court cannot surrogate for the medical staff in executing this responsibility. Human lives are at stake, and the board must be given discretion in its selection so that it can have confidence in the competence and moral commitment of its staff.

Ethical and Legal Issues

1. Do you agree with the court's decision? Explain.

2. Discuss under what circumstances you believe a court should become involved in an organization's disciplinary processes (e.g., age discrimination).