Select header/footer to go to
Table of Contents
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
1x Speed
2x Speed
51. Strikes - Unionization
Select Button
The medical practitioner’s highest calling, the only calling, is to make sick people healthy — to heal, as it is termed.
~ Samuel Hahnemann
Bargaining Dilemma
The Power and Limits of Collective Bargaining in Healthcare
Dr. Karen Chen had been a loyal member of the local medical association for years. She had always believed that the collective bargaining power of the association could improve the lives of the practitioners and the patients they served. But when the association announced their plans to strike, Dr. Chen couldn’t help but feel conflicted.
The strike was set to take place in two weeks, and the practitioners were determined to get what they wanted. They demanded higher pay, better benefits, and less patient contact. Dr. Chen knew that these demands were not in line with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence that she and her colleagues had sworn to uphold.
Dr. Chen was torn between her loyalty to the association and her duty to her patients. She decided to talk to her colleagues about her concerns, hoping to convince them to reconsider their plans. But as she walked into the meeting, she found her colleagues in heated discussions, arguing over the details of the strike.
Suddenly, one of the practitioners fell to the ground, clutching their chest. Dr. Chen immediately sprang into action, rushing to the practitioner’s side. She quickly assessed the situation and realized that the practitioner was having a heart attack.
Dr. Chen’s training kicked in, and she began performing CPR while instructing one of her colleagues to call 911. Within minutes, the ambulance arrived, and the practitioner was taken to the hospital.
As the practitioners gathered around the hospital waiting room, Dr. Chen couldn’t help but think about the irony of the situation. They were fighting for better working conditions, but in the end, it was their dedication to their patients that truly mattered.
In the end, the strike was canceled, and the practitioners decided to focus their efforts on improving patient care instead. Dr. Chen learned that collective bargaining could be a powerful tool for improving patient outcomes, as long as it prioritized the patient’s best interests and didn’t violate the patient-practitioner relationship.
Abstract
The issue of medical practitioners unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining is a subject of renewed interest as the number of salaried practitioners increases and private practices decrease. This paper argues that such actions are justifiable only if they strengthen the patient-practitioner relationship, prioritize the patient’s best interests, and decrease healthcare disparities. The paper assesses the impact of practitioner unionization and strikes on patient autonomy, medical practitioners’ duty of beneficence and nonmaleficence, and public policy’s principle of justice. The conclusion is that unionization and strikes can only be justified if they are not motivated by self-interested reasons, do not violate the patient-practitioner relationship, do not increase the risk of harm to patients, and prioritize the patient’s best interests while decreasing healthcare disparities.
**
Think
[51:1] If medical practitioners are going to unionize and engage in collective bargaining pressures, then those actions are professionally justifiable if and only if they strengthen the patient-practitioner relationship, maximize the patient’s best interests, and decrease healthcare disparities.
[51:2] As the number of practitioners in private practice decrease and the number of practitioners in institutional salaried positions increases, there has been a renewed interest as to whether or not a practitioner’s collective actions employing unionization and strikes are compatible with the patient-practitioner relationship.
Assess
Patient: 1) Autonomy
[51:3] Patient autonomy is actualized through the process of informed consent, where the patient authorizes the practitioner to provide the agreed-upon treatment option(s). The necessary conditions for a patient’s informed consent are that the patient with decisional capacity has a patient-practitioner relationship, is sufficiently informed about their disease or injury, prognosis, accepted treatment options, risks and benefits of the options, have all their questions answered, and after which the patient provides informed consent.
[51:4] The extent to which unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining pressures would result in the improvement, and better actualization of one or more of these necessary conditions for informed consent would be the degree to which the principle of patient autonomy would not be violated if there were to be practitioner unionization or collective bargaining. For example, practitioners using collective bargaining to acquire better foreign language translation technologies for improved communication with patients or adding services that would improve patient access would not violate the patient-practitioner relationship.
[51:5] However, the extent to which unionization and strikes decrease the patient-practitioner relationship, changes the patient-centered focus to practitioner-centered, and decreases the patient’s ability to provide timely informed consent, is the extent to which the principle of patient autonomy would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
Practitioner: 2) Beneficence & 3) Nonmaleficence
[51:6] Medical practitioners have the professional duty to be patient-centered and maximize the patient’s best interests as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. Practitioners accomplish this using the principles of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm).
[51:7] Therefore, it is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm as the practitioner must always be patient-centered and not violate the patient-practitioner relationship. The typical self-interested justifications for unionization and strikes, such as increased pay, benefits, and less patient contact, are not compatible with the professional altruistic character traits expected of practitioners.
[51:8] However, if unionization and strikes can be organized or conducted in such a way that there are:
- 1. no increases in the risk of harm to patients,
- 2. no violation of the patient-practitioner relationship, and
- 3. increases the patient’s best interests, such as better access to standardly accepted diagnostic technologies and treatment,
then it can be argued that the principles of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm) are not being violated.
[51:9] However, to the extent to which practitioners shift their focus away from being patient-centered, away from maximizing the patient’s best interests is the degree to which the principles of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm) are violated and the medical profession would be obligated to oppose practitioner unionization and strikes.
Public Policy: 4) Justice
[51:10] Public policy focuses on justice, the fair distribution of benefits and burdens related to patient care, and is generally referred to as decreasing healthcare disparities. To the extent that unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining pressures would increase patient fairness, such as lower co-pays, greater medical coverage, and decreasing healthcare disparities, would be the degree to which the public policy principle of justice (be fair) would not be violated.
[51:11] However, the extent to which patient healthcare disparities increase because of unionization and strikes is the extent to which the principle of justice would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
Conclude
[51:12] Unionization and strikes can only be justified if doing so is not motivated by self-interested justifications such as increased pay, increased benefits, and less patient contact; does not violate the patient-practitioner relationship; does not increase the risk of harm to patients; and the primary purpose is patient-centered, focusing on patients best interests, as determined by patients reasonable goals, values, and priorities, and decreases healthcare disparities.
[51:13] In summary, the question of whether medical practitioners should unionize and engage in collective bargaining is being debated as private practices decrease and salaried positions increase. The answer is that such actions are only justified if they prioritize the patient’s interests, strengthen the patient-practitioner relationship, and reduce healthcare disparities. The principles of patient autonomy, practitioner beneficence and nonmaleficence, and public policy’s principle of justice must all be considered. Unionization and strikes can only be considered ethical if they do not violate the patient-practitioner relationship, do not increase the risk of harm to patients, and prioritize patient-centered care.
**
51. Review Questions
1. If medical practitioners are going to unionize and engage in collective bargaining pressures, then those actions are professionally justifiable if and only if they strengthen the patient-practitioner relationship, maximizes the patient’s best interests, and decrease healthcare disparities.
2. The extent to which unionization and strikes decrease the patient-practitioner relationship, changes the patient-centered focus to practitioner-centered, and decreases the patient’s ability to provide timely informed consent, is the extent to which the principle of patient autonomy would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
3. Medical practitioners are no different from other citizens allowed to unionize and strike for self-interested reasons.
4. It is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm as the practitioner must always be patient-centered and not violate the patient-practitioner relationship.
5. The typical self-interested justifications for unionization and strikes, such as increased pay, benefits, and less patient contact, are not compatible with the professional altruistic character traits expected of practitioners.
6. To the extent that unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining pressures would increase patient fairness, such as lower co-pays, greater medical coverage, and decreasing healthcare disparities, would be the degree to which the public policy principle of justice (be fair) would not be violated.
7. The extent to which patient healthcare disparities increase because of unionization and strikes is the extent to which the principle of justice would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
**
CORRECT! 🙂
[51:1] If practitioners are going to unionize and engage in collective bargaining pressures, then those actions are professionally justifiable if and only if they strengthen the patient-practitioner relationship, maximize the patient’s best interests, and decrease healthcare disparities.
Wrong 😕
[51:1] If practitioners are going to unionize and engage in collective bargaining pressures, then those actions are professionally justifiable if and only if they strengthen the patient-practitioner relationship, maximize the patient’s best interests, and decrease healthcare disparities.
Wrong 😕
[51:5] However, the extent to which unionization and strikes decrease the patient-practitioner relationship, changes the patient-centered focus to practitioner-centered, and decreases the patient’s ability to provide timely informed consent, is the extent to which the principle of patient autonomy would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
CORRECT! 🙂
[51:5] However, the extent to which unionization and strikes decrease the patient-practitioner relationship, changes the patient-centered focus to practitioner-centered, and decreases the patient’s ability to provide timely informed consent, is the extent to which the principle of patient autonomy would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
Wrong 😕
[51:6] Practitioners have the professional duty to be patient-centered and maximize the patient’s best interests as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. Practitioners accomplish this using the principles of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm).
CORRECT! 🙂
[51:6] Practitioners have the professional duty to be patient-centered and maximize the patient’s best interests as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. Practitioners accomplish this using the principles of beneficence (do good) and nonmaleficence (do no harm).
CORRECT! 🙂
[51:7] Therefore, it is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm as the practitioner must always be patient-centered and not violate the patient-practitioner relationship. The typical self-interested justifications for unionization and strikes, such as increased pay, benefits, and less patient contact, are not compatible with the professional altruistic character traits expected of practitioners.
Wrong 😕
[51:7] Therefore, it is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm as the practitioner must always be patient-centered and not violate the patient-practitioner relationship. The typical self-interested justifications for unionization and strikes, such as increased pay, benefits, and less patient contact, are not compatible with the professional altruistic character traits expected of practitioners.
CORRECT! 🙂
[51:7] Therefore, it is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm as the practitioner must always be patient-centered and not violate the patient-practitioner relationship. The typical self-interested justifications for unionization and strikes, such as increased pay, benefits, and less patient contact, are not compatible with the professional altruistic character traits expected of practitioners.
Wrong 😕
[51:7] Therefore, it is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm as the practitioner must always be patient-centered and not violate the patient-practitioner relationship. The typical self-interested justifications for unionization and strikes, such as increased pay, benefits, and less patient contact, are not compatible with the professional altruistic character traits expected of practitioners.
Wrong 😕
[51:10] Public policy focuses on justice, the fair distribution of benefits and burdens related to patient care, and is generally referred to as decreasing healthcare disparities. To the extent that unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining pressures would increase patient fairness, such as lower co-pays, greater medical coverage, and decreasing healthcare disparities, would be the degree to which the public policy principle of justice (be fair) would not be violated.
CORRECT! 🙂
[51:10] Public policy focuses on justice, the fair distribution of benefits and burdens related to patient care, and is generally referred to as decreasing healthcare disparities. To the extent that unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining pressures would increase patient fairness, such as lower co-pays, greater medical coverage, and decreasing healthcare disparities, would be the degree to which the public policy principle of justice (be fair) would not be violated.
CORRECT! 🙂
[51:12] However, the extent to which patient healthcare disparities increase because of unionization and strikes is the extent to which the principle of justice would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
Wrong 😕
[51:12] However, the extent to which patient healthcare disparities increase because of unionization and strikes is the extent to which the principle of justice would be incompatible with practitioner unionization and strikes.
51. Clinical Vignettes
1. Ms. Samantha Walker is a 30-year-old nurse who works in a public hospital. She and her colleagues have been negotiating with the hospital administration for better pay, benefits, and working conditions for the past few months. However, despite their efforts, the negotiations have not been successful, and they have decided to go on strike. What is the ethical question in this scenario?
2. You are a first-year resident at a teaching hospital, where you are assigned to Ms. Jane Davis, a 58-year-old accountant who presents to the primary care physician with complaints of persistent fever, night sweats, weight loss, and fatigue. She has no significant medical history, and she does not smoke or drink. The differential diagnosis includes various infectious and neoplastic diseases, such as tuberculosis, lymphoma, leukemia, and other malignancies. The physician is a member of a newly formed practitioner union that has been negotiating with the hospital administration for better compensation and resources. The union has announced plans to strike in two weeks. You have heard that some of the more senior residents are considering participating in the strike. As a medical student, you are concerned about the impact of the strike on patient care and wonder whether the physician's participation in the strike is justifiable given Ms. Davis's health status and the need for timely diagnosis and treatment.
3. Mr. Eric Johnson is a 40-year-old teacher who has been experiencing chest pain for the past few days. He goes to the local hospital, and the physician recommends an angiogram to rule out any heart-related issues. However, due to an ongoing strike by the hospital's medical practitioners, the procedure cannot be performed, and Mr. Johnson's condition worsens. What is the ethical question in this scenario?
4. Ms. Jane Adams is a 60-year-old retired nurse who has been diagnosed with cancer. After several rounds of chemotherapy, her condition worsens, and the physician recommends surgery to remove the tumor. However, due to a strike by the hospital's surgical team, the surgery is postponed, and Ms. Adams's condition continues to deteriorate. What is the ethical question in this scenario?
5. Ms. Sarah Thomas is a 35-year-old software engineer who has been admitted to the hospital with a severe allergic reaction to medication. After several days of medical tests and examinations, the physician recommends a specific course of treatment that is being delayed due to a planned strike by the hospital's medical practitioners. What is the ethical question in this scenario?
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether healthcare professionals should be allowed to strike. As mentioned in the Abstract and [51:2], the issue of medical practitioners unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining is a subject of renewed interest. If healthcare professionals go on strike, it may affect the patient-practitioner relationship, decrease the patient's ability to provide timely informed consent, and increase healthcare disparities, which are incompatible with the principle of patient autonomy [51:5]. At the same time, healthcare professionals have the right to negotiate for better pay, benefits, and working conditions as per the principles of justice [51:10]. Therefore, it is essential to strike a balance between the rights of healthcare professionals and the needs of patients while upholding the principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice [51:12]. The other options may not be ethically justifiable, as they may violate one or more ethical principles [51].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether healthcare professionals should be allowed to strike. As mentioned in the Abstract and [51:2], the issue of medical practitioners unionizing and engaging in collective bargaining is a subject of renewed interest. If healthcare professionals go on strike, it may affect the patient-practitioner relationship, decrease the patient's ability to provide timely informed consent, and increase healthcare disparities, which are incompatible with the principle of patient autonomy [51:5]. At the same time, healthcare professionals have the right to negotiate for better pay, benefits, and working conditions as per the principles of justice [51:10]. Therefore, it is essential to strike a balance between the rights of healthcare professionals and the needs of patients while upholding the principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice [51:12]. The other options may not be ethically justifiable, as they may violate one or more ethical principles [51].
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: As a first year resident, you have a duty to prioritize the patient's best interests and ensure that the patient receives timely and appropriate care [51:6]. Ms. Davis's symptoms and differential diagnosis suggest a potentially serious illness that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment [51:3]. The patient-practitioner relationship is essential to ensuring that the patient's autonomy is respected and the patient's best interests are prioritized [51:5]. The physician's participation in a strike would compromise the patient-practitioner relationship and violate the principle of patient autonomy [51:5]. The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence require that the practitioner act in the patient's best interests and avoid harm to the patient [51:6]. Participating in a strike that would compromise Ms. Davis's timely diagnosis, treatment, and patient safety would violate these principles and put her at increased risk of harm [51:9]. Therefore, the physician should not participate in the strike as it would violate the patient-practitioner relationship and compromise Ms. Davis's timely diagnosis and treatment. However, as a resident, you can work with the physician to find alternative ways to improve patient care while maintaining patient safety [51:12]. Prioritizing the greater good for future patients over the well-being of current patients violates the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence [51:6].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: As a first year resident, you have a duty to prioritize the patient's best interests and ensure that the patient receives timely and appropriate care [51:6]. Ms. Davis's symptoms and differential diagnosis suggest a potentially serious illness that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment [51:3]. The patient-practitioner relationship is essential to ensuring that the patient's autonomy is respected and the patient's best interests are prioritized [51:5]. The physician's participation in a strike would compromise the patient-practitioner relationship and violate the principle of patient autonomy [51:5]. The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence require that the practitioner act in the patient's best interests and avoid harm to the patient [51:6]. Participating in a strike that would compromise Ms. Davis's timely diagnosis, treatment, and patient safety would violate these principles and put her at increased risk of harm [51:9]. Therefore, the physician should not participate in the strike as it would violate the patient-practitioner relationship and compromise Ms. Davis's timely diagnosis and treatment. However, as a resident, you can work with the physician to find alternative ways to improve patient care while maintaining patient safety [51:12]. Prioritizing the greater good for future patients over the well-being of current patients violates the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence [51:6].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether healthcare professionals should be allowed to strike. The issue of healthcare professionals' right to strike is a matter of debate. As per the abstract [51:1], healthcare practitioners must prioritize their patients' best interests, and any actions that violate the patient-practitioner relationship, decrease the patient's ability to provide timely informed consent, and increase healthcare disparities are incompatible with the principle of patient autonomy. Striking by healthcare professionals can have a significant impact on patients, as it can affect patient care, increase the risk of harm to patients, and violate the patient-practitioner relationship [51:5, 51:7]. However, healthcare professionals, like other employees, have the right to bargain collectively and engage in industrial action [51:2]. Therefore, the ethical question is whether or not the right to strike should be extended to healthcare professionals, given the potential harm to patients. The decision to allow healthcare professionals to strike should consider the balance between the right to strike and the potential harm to patients. The other options are not ethically justifiable as they do not address the fundamental ethical question.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether healthcare professionals should be allowed to strike. The issue of healthcare professionals' right to strike is a matter of debate. As per the abstract [51:1], healthcare practitioners must prioritize their patients' best interests, and any actions that violate the patient-practitioner relationship, decrease the patient's ability to provide timely informed consent, and increase healthcare disparities are incompatible with the principle of patient autonomy. Striking by healthcare professionals can have a significant impact on patients, as it can affect patient care, increase the risk of harm to patients, and violate the patient-practitioner relationship [51:5, 51:7]. However, healthcare professionals, like other employees, have the right to bargain collectively and engage in industrial action [51:2]. Therefore, the ethical question is whether or not the right to strike should be extended to healthcare professionals, given the potential harm to patients. The decision to allow healthcare professionals to strike should consider the balance between the right to strike and the potential harm to patients. The other options are not ethically justifiable as they do not address the fundamental ethical question.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether the surgical team should be prohibited from striking, as per [51:7]. It is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm. In this scenario, the strike has put Ms. Adams's health and well-being at risk, violating the patient-practitioner relationship [51:7]. Allowing the surgical team to strike has resulted in delaying Ms. Adams's treatment, which may have serious consequences for her health. The hospital has a duty of care to ensure that its patients receive timely and appropriate treatment, and a strike that puts patients' health at risk is incompatible with this duty. The other options are not ethically justifiable, as they may result in violating one or more ethical principles mentioned in [51]. The only ethically justifiable option is prohibiting the surgical team from striking, to ensure that the hospital fulfills its duty of care to its patients, upholds the patient-practitioner relationship, and minimizes the risk of harm to patients.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether the surgical team should be prohibited from striking, as per [51:7]. It is considered unprofessional and unethical for practitioners to strike if it would put patients at increased risk of harm. In this scenario, the strike has put Ms. Adams's health and well-being at risk, violating the patient-practitioner relationship [51:7]. Allowing the surgical team to strike has resulted in delaying Ms. Adams's treatment, which may have serious consequences for her health. The hospital has a duty of care to ensure that its patients receive timely and appropriate treatment, and a strike that puts patients' health at risk is incompatible with this duty. The other options are not ethically justifiable, as they may result in violating one or more ethical principles mentioned in [51]. The only ethically justifiable option is prohibiting the surgical team from striking, to ensure that the hospital fulfills its duty of care to its patients, upholds the patient-practitioner relationship, and minimizes the risk of harm to patients.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether medical practitioners should be prohibited from striking to ensure that patients receive timely and appropriate care, as per [51:7]. The issue of healthcare professionals striking is a subject of renewed interest in the healthcare industry. Healthcare professionals have the right to express their grievances, such as fair compensation and better working conditions, but they also have a professional duty to prioritize their patients' best interests [51:7]. If the strike is motivated by self-interest, it may affect the patient-practitioner relationship and decrease patient autonomy, violating ethical principles [51:5]. However, if the strike puts patients' health at risk, it is considered unprofessional and unethical, violating the patient-practitioner relationship [51:7]. Therefore, it is an ethical question to determine whether medical practitioners should have the right to strike or not. Prohibiting medical practitioners from striking, is the most ethically justifiable option in this scenario, as the strike has delayed Ms. Sarah Thomas's treatment, which may have serious consequences for her health. The hospital has a duty of care to ensure that its patients receive timely and appropriate treatment, and a strike that puts patients' health at risk is incompatible with this duty [51:7]. The other options are not ethically justifiable, as they may result in violating one or more ethical principles of medical ethics [51].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The ethical question in this scenario is whether medical practitioners should be prohibited from striking to ensure that patients receive timely and appropriate care, as per [51:7]. The issue of healthcare professionals striking is a subject of renewed interest in the healthcare industry. Healthcare professionals have the right to express their grievances, such as fair compensation and better working conditions, but they also have a professional duty to prioritize their patients' best interests [51:7]. If the strike is motivated by self-interest, it may affect the patient-practitioner relationship and decrease patient autonomy, violating ethical principles [51:5]. However, if the strike puts patients' health at risk, it is considered unprofessional and unethical, violating the patient-practitioner relationship [51:7]. Therefore, it is an ethical question to determine whether medical practitioners should have the right to strike or not. Prohibiting medical practitioners from striking, is the most ethically justifiable option in this scenario, as the strike has delayed Ms. Sarah Thomas's treatment, which may have serious consequences for her health. The hospital has a duty of care to ensure that its patients receive timely and appropriate treatment, and a strike that puts patients' health at risk is incompatible with this duty [51:7]. The other options are not ethically justifiable, as they may result in violating one or more ethical principles of medical ethics [51].
**
51. Reflection Vignettes
1. Dr. Amanda Johnson, a 28-year-old recent medical school graduate, matched at a prominent hospital. The hospital’s resident doctors, in solidarity, voted to unionize. The purpose of the union is to advocate for better working conditions, better pay, and other benefits that the resident doctors feel are inadequate. Union membership is voluntary, and Dr. Johnson is unsure if she should join the union. It is important for her to fully understand the implications of joining a union, including the union's goals, policies, and priorities, as well as any legal obligations or restrictions that may apply. She should also consult with colleagues, mentors, and professional organizations to gather different perspectives and insights on the matter. Ultimately, she should make a decision that aligns with her personal and professional values, goals, and priorities.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
**
51b
2. Dr. Kimberly Lee, a 30-year-old resident doctor employed at the regional hospital, is torn between her duties as a practitioner and her fellow colleagues' decision to go on strike. The strike was called after collective bargaining for better salaries and more time off failed. Dr. Lee believes that practitioners have the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining only if it strengthens the patient-practitioner relationship, maximizes the patient's best interests, and decreases healthcare disparities. She is concerned that the strike will put patients at risk and violate their right to receive timely informed consent. Dr. Lee must decide whether to join her colleagues or continue to fulfill her duty of beneficence and nonmaleficence towards her patients.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
***
