Arif is a public servant with experience across various state public service departments and holds a qualification as a chartered accountant. During his work, which primarily involves handling monetary and budgeting matters, Arif discovers that public funds are being improperly ...
Model Answer (a) Course of Action for Sneha Sneha should recuse herself from the procurement decision-making process. By stepping aside, she can prevent any potential bias or appearance of favoritism that may arise from her brother's involvement as a vendor. Justification: Adherence to Ethical PrincRead more
Model Answer
(a) Course of Action for Sneha
Sneha should recuse herself from the procurement decision-making process. By stepping aside, she can prevent any potential bias or appearance of favoritism that may arise from her brother’s involvement as a vendor.
Justification:
- Adherence to Ethical Principles: Following the Doctrine of Conflict of Interest ensures impartiality.
- Transparency: Disclosing her relationship with the vendor promotes trust and accountability.
- Compliance with Hospital Policies: Aligning with the hospital’s ethical guidelines reinforces her commitment to fairness.
(b) Justification for Her Decision
- Protecting Hospital Reputation: By recusing herself, Sneha protects both her and the hospital’s reputation from accusations of nepotism.
- Prioritizing Patient Care: Ensuring that procurement decisions are made based on merit guarantees high-quality medical equipment, ultimately benefiting patient welfare.
- Long-term Sustainability: Acting ethically sets a standard for future decisions, reinforcing the hospital’s integrity and stakeholder trust.
(c) Compromise of Medical Ethics with Vested Personal Interest
- Conflict of Interest: Sneha’s personal ties introduce bias, undermining her professional responsibility. Ethical egoism suggests her decision could prioritize personal gain over the hospital’s needs.
- Example: Favoring her brother’s company might lead to substandard equipment, violating the principle of non-maleficence (avoiding harm to patients).
- Loss of Trust: Stakeholders may question the integrity of procurement decisions, leading to a loss of confidence in the hospital’s operational ethics.
- Example: If stakeholders perceive decisions as influenced by nepotism, they may withdraw support or trust in the hospital’s governance.
- Unfair Business Practices: Favoring her brother’s firm violates the principle of distributive justice, denying other vendors a fair chance to compete.
- Example: Other suppliers might feel unfairly treated, leading to fewer competitive bids and potentially higher costs for the hospital.
- Impact on Staff Morale: Witnessing nepotism can demotivate employees, negatively affecting productivity and morale.
- Example: Staff may feel disillusioned, leading to a decline in overall job satisfaction and engagement.
In navigating this ethical dilemma, Sneha’s commitment to integrity and transparency will reinforce the hospital’s reputation and set a precedent for ethical decision-making. As Albert Einstein noted, “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters,” emphasizing the importance of ethical conduct in all areas.
See less
Model Answer 1. Misappropriation of Public Funds The diversion of public funds from low-priority areas to high-priority areas, as described in the case, is a clear ethical issue. The funds intended for specific public purposes are being misused, violating the trust placed in public servants by taxpaRead more
Model Answer
1. Misappropriation of Public Funds
The diversion of public funds from low-priority areas to high-priority areas, as described in the case, is a clear ethical issue. The funds intended for specific public purposes are being misused, violating the trust placed in public servants by taxpayers. This kind of financial mismanagement undermines the principles of good governance, as public funds should be allocated responsibly and transparently. Misappropriating funds for purposes other than those intended is a breach of ethical standards in public service and constitutes a serious abuse of power.
2. Lack of Accountability
Arif’s concerns regarding the channeling of funds were raised in good faith, with the intent to uphold integrity in budgeting processes. However, his superior and the Head of the Department dismissed the issue, revealing a lack of accountability within the public service department. The failure to address these concerns reflects an institutional unwillingness to confront potential wrongdoing. This lack of accountability compromises the ethical responsibility of public servants to act in the best interest of the public and ensure the correct usage of public resources.
3. Condoning Unethical Practices
The decision of Arif’s senior and the Head of the Department to condone the practice of fund diversion, rather than taking corrective action, represents a serious ethical breach. By accepting and perpetuating this unethical behavior, they abuse their authority and neglect their professional duty to maintain the integrity of the public service. This undermines the ethical responsibility to act as custodians of public resources and upholds the standards of honesty and transparency.
4. Politicization of Public Service
See lessThe directive to suppress Arif’s concerns based on political sensitivity reveals how ethics in public service can be compromised by political considerations. This prioritization of political interests over ethical behavior not only compromises the integrity of public service but also risks harming public welfare. The attempt to shield the government from scrutiny undermines the values of transparency and accountability, which are fundamental to good governance.