PSYC FPX 4110 Assessment 3: Applying Ethical Principles | Capella Guide

Applying Ethical Principles in Systemic Healthcare

PSYC FPX 4110 Assessment 3:Introduction to Systemic Ethical Leadership

In the advanced practice of nursing and psychology, applying ethical principles is not just something that each person should do; it is something that the whole system needs to do. Professionals frequently navigate the convergence of personalized patient care and overarching institutional directives. This paper examines a case study of a practitioner who discovers that their healthcare organization’s new “productivity-based” software is systematically disadvantageous to low-income patients, highlighting the tension between institutional loyalty and the ethical principle of Justice.

Identification of Systemic Ethical Dilemmas

The main problem in this situation is that Justice and Fidelity are at odds with each other. The organization’s goal is to be financially stable (an institutional Beneficence), but the “Applying Ethical Principles” lens shows that the algorithm used to schedule patients is unfair to people with lower incomes. This violates Justice because resources are not fairly distributed, and it violates Non-maleficence because vulnerable groups have to wait longer for care.

Applying Ethical Principles: The Pillars of Bioethics

When applying ethical principles at the organizational level, one must view the four pillars through a macro lens:

• Autonomy: Are patients able to choose their own care if the system’s algorithm is secretly limiting their access?
• Beneficence: Does the institution’s quest for profit genuinely promote the “greater good,” or does it restrict the breadth of care?
• Non-maleficence: Stopping the “harm” that comes from systemic bias and long wait times.
• Justice: Making sure that healthcare is fair and that data-driven efficiency doesn’t push the “most vulnerable” to the side.

Comparison of Ethical Theories: Theoretical Justification

A hallmark of high-level assessment is the ability to contrast normative theories:

1. Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics)

A Deontologist, adhering to Kantian Ethics, would contend that the practitioner possesses a “absolute duty” to champion Justice. In this context, regarding patients as “units of productivity” instead of “ends in themselves” constitutes a moral failing. To follow ethical principles in this case, the practitioner must report the software’s bias, even if it means risking their job.

2. Utilitarianism (Consequence-Based Ethics)

A Utilitarian would look for the “Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.” If the software’s efficiency allows the hospital to stay solvent and serve 90% of the population more effectively, a utilitarian might initially see it as a “net win.” However, a “Rule Utilitarian” would argue that a healthcare system that loses its moral foundation and public trust creates a greater long-term “negative utility” for the entire community.

Proposed Resolution and Justification

The suggested solution is based on a “Internal Advocacy and Reform” model. The practitioner should first use the organization’s internal ethics committee to show data-backed proof of the software’s bias, following ethical guidelines. The goal is to “re-calibrate” the algorithm so that clinical need comes before financial metrics. This path is good for Fidelity to the organization because it tries to fix the system from the inside, and it also follows Justice and Non-maleficence. The APA Standard 1.03 says that psychologists must take reasonable steps to settle conflicts between their ethical duties and the needs of the organization. This is why this decision is right.

Conclusion and Professional Reflection

To use ethical principles at the 4110 level, you need to be brave enough to go beyond the bedside and look at how care is organized. As ethical leaders, we must make sure that the tools we use, like clinical protocols or software algorithms, are in line with the core values of the healing professions.