Corporate Governance and Ethical Responsibility Research Paper - 2

Corporate Governance and Ethical Responsibility - Research Paper illustrationWhen the standard of care has been breached by medical practitioners and damage keister be proven as a result, patients fuel take appropriate legal action (Johnson, 2010). Duty of care guarantees compliance to complete national statutes. Secondary stakeholders, internally, are the physicians and nurses accountable for ensuring compliant medical procedures and patient oversight. Dr. DoRight must work with these staff members fooling ensuring adequate supervision of their activities. Concurrently, this stakeholder group maintains certain protections under employment law that mandate the extent to which Dr. DoRight can intervene and establish disciplinary procedures. A third stakeholder group is the arrangement circuit card charged with overseeing infirmary operations and strategic developments. The Executive Committee and Regional Compliance Manager have responsibilities for ensuring compliance to est ablished legalities in the medical field. In tandem, the governance stakeholders must ensure alignment of operational activities with established infirmary regulations developed internally. Conflicts of Interest with Stakeholders The first conflict of interest requiring analysis is the relationship between Dr. DoRight and the governance board members. The governance system maintains responsibility for ensuring the publicized integrity and reputation of the hospital, which is a fundamental form of somatic protectionism. Dr. DoRights allegations (and they are only currently allegations) of staff misconduct poses future, potential reputation problems for the hospital if investigation determines that several years have passed without taking appropriate action for criminal misconduct by nurses and physicians. The governance board and Dr. DoRight also maintain responsibility for ensuring duty of care for patients, thrusting them all into a of import conflict of interest for protecting b oth the hospital public image and also ensuring patient standards of care. Additionally, the more corporations and community organizations that conduct business with the hospital pose another conflict of interest for Dr. DoRight. Dr. DoRight has received legion(predicate) accolades for excellence in executive function, including the Medical Business Executive of the Year award in 2011. Dr. DoRight must determine whether to spare his reputation that has been gleaned through years of community and corporate trust-building whilst also maintaining responsibility to threaten legal non-compliance that jeopardizes patient safety and security. Dr. DoRight likely asks himself whether self-protectionism or community/corporate stakeholder needs should be considered the closely primary objective when considering what he believes is occurring in the organization. Has Dr. DoRight Fulfilled His Ethical Obligations? Dr. DoRight has not fully fulfilled his honourable obligations in this case. H e certainly took the appropriate steps by informing his superiors (those with power to investigate and penalize these acts) which does speak toward his maintaining some form of ethical foundation and ethical value system. However, tort law can also provide potential consequences that give him personal