Ethics Case Analysis
Guiseppina Saieva
July 2, 2013

Ethics Case Analysis Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morality and the distinctions between right and wrong (Soskolne & Sieswerda, 2002). Autonomy is a person's right to make their own decisions. Both ethics and autonomy are very important in healthcare and situations regarding the public's health. Public health must balance the public good with the good of individuals (Soskolne & Sieswerda, 2002). Thinking as a healthcare practitioner, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker only thought about himself and not others when he made the choice to fly via public transportation knowing he had a contagious disease that was unable to be treated. Mr. Speaker does have the right to make his own decisions but I do not feel while doing so he should be able to put the public in harm. He was told that his disease was contagious and could not be treated but he still put the public at risk of catching the disease. In my opinion this in inhumane and he should be punished for his action's, even though at the end, he found out he had a treatable disease, when he exposed his self to the public he was still under the impression that his disease was contagious and unable to be treated. Knowing that Mr. speaker was still willing to put the public at harm his autonomy as a person should not have taken precedence over the CDC's desire to enforce the public health law. Just like Mr. Speaker's autonomy gives him the right to make his own decision's the public should have the right to make the decision rather or not they want to be put at risk of catching the contagious disease that Mr. Speaker thought he had. He took that right away from those passengers when he flew via public transportation knowing the passengers would be put at risk. The actions that he took were unmoral in my opinion and if I was in that situation I would be even more furious knowing the fact that Mr. Speaker knew about his situation and still chose to put those passengers health in danger. Mr. Speaker could have made it to his destination another way that would not harm others, but he was obviously not concerned about anyone else but himself at that time. Mr. Speaker might have made a better decision regarding his transportation source if he would have incorporated the four principles of bioethics when he made his decision. These four principles include respect for autonomy, non maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Respect for autonomy would have made him think about how he took the passengers right to make their own decisions of whether or not they wanted to be exposed to this disease. Non maleficence, would have made Mr. Speaker realize he was putting the public at harm. The third principle beneficence, would have him think about the principle of doing good which would have been not to put the passengers at danger of catching the disease. Finally, the fourth principle justice, would have helped him make the right decision by helping Mr. Speaker realize that it would have done the public justice to not be exposed to his disease. These are all things that he should have though about thoroughly before he made his final decision of putting the public in harm. Despite the inception of modern treatments and public health interventions, tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant public health threat (Center for Law and the Public's Health, 2009). Te Center for Disease Control has a responsibility to protect the public and control public health threats and in this situation this is exactly what CDC did. I do think they acted ethically y involuntarily quarantining Mr. Speaker. He was a threat to the public and he put the public at harm by making the decision he made. In my opinion, the CDC stopped him from harming anyone else and spreading the disease they thought he had. After all, if the CDC had not taken the actions they had taken Mr, speaker my not have found out is condition was actually able to be treated. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – through its Division of Tuberculosis Elimination (DTBE) and its Public Health Law Program (PHLP) – has identified legal preparedness as a critical component in the control of many public health threats, including TB (Center for Law and the Public's Health, 2009). In conclusion, everyone has the right to make their own decisions but it is against the law to put the public at harm when a person knows they are harming others. Mr. Speaker's did not act ethically and it had to be unfortunately corrected against his will. Your actions have consequences that must be measured in order to determine if you are providing for the greatest good (Morrison, 2011).

References
Centers for Law and the Public Health. (2009). Tuberculosis control laws and policies. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf
Morrison, E. (2011). Ethics in health administration A practical approach for decision makers (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, LLC
Soskolne, C. & Sieswerda, L. (2002). Ethics of public health. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/ethics-of-public-health