Integrity delimma

Essay Instructions:

Suppose that you are employed by the Alabama Department of Corrections as a psychologist. You are a dedicated employee who advocates for the rights of the disabled inmates. You work overtime, sometimes without pay. But your existing caseload is unmanageable and yet every day you are assigned new cases. One of your patients attempted to commit suicide. You have complained to your supervisor to no avail. An investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) found that many inmates in Alabama’s state prisons, including those with disabilities and serious physical and mental illnesses, face systemic indifference, discrimination, and dangerous life-threatening conditions. Inspections of Alabama prisons, interviews with prisoners, and a review of medical records, depositions, media accounts, policies, contracts, and reports of the ADOC, reveal that Alabama’s prisons violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (“cruel and unusual punishment”) and federal law intended to protect people with disabilities. You know that the allegations set forth in the complaint are factually correct. But you need your job. You have a wife, two children, and a mortgage. You spoke truthfully when you were interviewed by the ADAP. You confirmed that inmates are being denied adequate medical care. In 2011, in Brown v. Plata, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that depriving prisoners of adequate medical care “is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Deliberate indifference to these medical needs constitutes “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” barred by the Eighth Amendment (https://www(dot)splcenter(dot)org/sites/default/files/documents/the_opinion.pdf). You know that the ADOC is understaffed and that allegations contained in the complaint are true, but you find yourself in a difficult position given that your livelihood depends on employment with the prison. One by one, apply Rushworth Kidder’s four typologies (i.e., “justice versus mercy,” “truth versus loyalty,” “individual versus community,” and “short term versus long term”) ethical dilemmas, found on page 134 of your textbook, to assess the moral permissibility of the conduct alleged in the complaint. Work through each typology, gathering whatever information is relevant for both sides of the argument. Apply Kidder’s checkpoints as outlined in the following presentation: http://www(dot)agsm(dot)edu(dot)au/bobm/teaching/BE/lect03-3.pdf. (Disregard slide 11). Support your writing assignment with two (2) outside scholarly articles. Reference the complaint filed by the SPLC and other articles from their website when relevant.

Essay Sample Content Preview:

Integrity Dilemma Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Integrity Dilemma Addressing integrity dilemmas is becoming a key skill in contemporary workplaces considering the number of cases that attract the inability to make the right decisions. In this case, an employee is faced with two situations that bear almost equal repercussions. Choosing to support the employer or the patients is a decision that must be guided by the necessary principles. Besides the 8th Amendment, the decision can be based on a range of other models. In this analysis, emphasis will be put on addressing the case by analysing the different factions of Rushworth Kidder’s four typologies that include “justice versus mercy,” “truth versus loyalty,” “individual versus community,” and “short term versus long term”. The analysis ultimately applies Kidder’s checkpoints to guide decisions at each instance of the competing ideas. Justice versus Mercy The first of Rushworth Kidder’s typologies explores the nature of choice that a decision-maker has between justice and mercy. The perspective of justice emphasizes the need to make just decisions at every instance (Oppong, 2019). In the case, justice means that people are treated based on the scope of their rights. The Eighth Amendment outlines the scope of justice by stating that each individual, inmate or not, receives adequate medical care. Denying the inmates their right to medical care directly contravenes the guidelines of the 8th Amendment. It could amount to cruelty and unusual punishment to the inmates if they are not served the justice that they rightfully deserve. The opposing perspective to justice is mercy. One could sympathize if the psychologist makes a decision to stay silent. That is because staying silent saves his job and protects his family from the probable suffering. The psychologist also avoids potential retaliation from his/her employer if he/she takes mercy as the decision. The choice between mercy and justice can be settled through various lenses of Kidder’s checkpoints. The first checkpoint should be the legal test. Questions must be asked on whether the law is broken while taking a particular decision. In this case, the psychologist breaks the 8th amendment if he/she stays silent on the issue. Silence protects the psychologist’s job. However, staying silent perpetuates injustice. The second checkpoint should be the universality test. The psychologist must consider what could happen in largescale should he/she make the decision to stay silent. Choosing mercy could mean a persistence of systemic injustice in the prisons. Finally, the psychologist’s decision should be subject to the consequence test. While speaking out could lead to the loss of job and family problems by extension, failure to expose the institution could steer the reluctance to improve the conditions for inmates forever. Truth versus Loyalty The decision-makers may also need to choose between truth and loyalty. From the truth perspective, it is the obligation of the psychologist to speak the truth (Oppong, 2019). The psychologist can acknowledge and report the real...

Updated on June 7, 2024

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order