Here's the discussion of the week which has the class very riled up. I think some of the students are taking the questions personally rather than considering them as theoretical ethics questions to view from all sides.

Daniel and his boss Susan work for a hospital management company. One of the hospitals they oversee is out of funding. In a month it'll get a big round of fresh funding to make changes with.

Daniel does a report on the hospital's error rates. He finds they are high and it worries him. He emails the report to Susan. Susan is also worried and mails it to her boss Jon asking what to do. Jon tells Susan that they have no money right now, in a month they'll get the funding, and to hold off on any action until the funding comes through so they don't risk losing that money.

So Susan then calls Daniel into a meeting and tells him the report is excellent, he did a great job, and that they'll need to wait for the funding to be able to publish and take action on the report.

Daniel wants to publish the report immediately so people know about the accident rate.

What are your thoughts about the situation?

...what would Cuddy do?....heh

My sense is that Cuddy would want verification. When House comes to her and says "we have to slice the guy's brain open" she says "no you don't" - she doesn't just go with what he states.

If the accident rate will affect how much funding they'd get, I'd try to hold off on it. But maybe have a safety meeting with the staff in the meantime. I've done my clinicals in several hospitals and I pricked my finger with a needle once. Luckily, it wasn't used so I didn't have to take out an accident report. But there are tons of other accidents that happen daily in a hospital. Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

there is a obligation to publish ALL the facts...

I think the greater good should be considered. But we don't know what the other variables are present with this hospital, their staff, their politics, their grants and relationships with funders.

I'd need a whole lot more data to really respond to this.

there is still a legal obligation with hospital to their funders and patients to give a full and accurate report..as with any board of CEO'S

at the very least they can otherwise be held accountable for misrepresentation...

this is why also investigations are made to find out where and how previous monies were spent...and you dont hold off and wait.

I see your point. I didn't mean they should give inaccurate information. I just didn't realize they had to publish the results immediately. If they are suppose to, then they should.

Both Susan and Daniel work for the management company. If Daniel does a report, it had to have been ordered by someone. I'm thinking his boss, Susan, gave him the assignment, and that the assignment came directly from Susan or through Susan from the managment company's CEO.

As for "publishing," it depends on what you mean by that. If he was directed to do a report, then he should give that report to Susan. What she, or those above her, do with it is out of his hands. There would be no call to independently "publish" - that is, write for professional or commercial media or "leak" the report - unless there were clear-cut evidence that deliberate malpractice was ongoing, or standards were so lowered that danger exists.

Of course, as you know, Lisa, the problem is what is clear-cut? And is danger of malpractice any less troubling if not deliberate?

On a wider scale, we find fault with the ones who did not stand up against Hitler's policies and orders. And yet, it boils down just like here.

When does a person blow the whistle? Another question beyond whether whistle blowing helps or harms the situation and the public, is does the whistle blowing help or harm the whistle blower?

And an immediate answer may not be a long-term answer.

An investigative reporter - we expect to blow the whistle. But a person who works for a company - the law may protect the person, and we may even praise the person for the courage and for caring, but often there is a distrust for the person later - not only from the company that he blew the whistle on, but with that whole industry, and perhaps with the public, as well.

Isn't talking about ethics fun?

More House discussion - Masters would never allow herself or anyone else to do something that was untrue.

Neither would Cameron.

Chase, House, Wilson, Amber, Thirteen, Foreman and Taub have all proven, several times in some cases, that they will do what they feel is better for themselves and/or the common good. All have been deceitful at times, for one reason or another.

I don't know about Cuddy. I tend to think she would go by the book, but it's hard to say - she is in a terrible spot either way, and in both situations the fallout will land right on her shoulders.