Ethic Case Reflection Guide

Introduction:

The overarching goal to writing reflections in this course is to provide the building
blocks of becoming an autonomous, reflective practitioner. By introducing this
concept early in your academic career, it will enable you to more habitually
implement this behavior in clinic. This activity also serves to begin your immersion
into social responsibility and volunteerism.

Now that you have participated with your group in discussing and finding a
solution to the ethical case you presented, I would like for you as an individual to
explore and respond to the following questions about this case from your own
perspective as a future physical therapist. The expectation by completing this
reflection is that you are to analyze the process that you and your group chose
in order to complete this assignment; thus, enabling insight to be gained from
your role within the group and into yourself.

Instruction:

 Reflectively respond to the below questions in a non-narrative,

question/answer format
 This should take about 1-2 pages; citations are needed if you refer back to
the ethical case

Reflection questions:

1. What was the central ethical issue you encountered in this case?
2. How would you resolve this ethical issue? Do you agree with the theorist
you used as a reference for solving this case?
3. Did the group’s choice differ from yours? If you were the only person
involved what would you have decided to do (vs. what the group
decided)?
4. What still confuses you about this case?
5. What did you learn about yourself from participating in this assignment
and how can you apply this when you get to clinic?
1. The central ethical dilemma surround the case was: “Is more better?”,
meaning is more therapy better for a patient’s that has been mandated
by a supervisor.
2. I would resolve this ethical dilemma by using the best evidence to support
my decision to allow patients to come 2 times per week instead of making
them come for a 3rd session. As the PT I would understand the full case
encircling the patient and would be able to provide the patient with the
best service. I would use the theories of Bentham (the ends justify the
mean) and the theories of Elizabeth Staton (PT’s should make decisions of
patient interactions and relationships). These were also the theorists that
our group used for this case and I agree with them.
3. I agree with the decision my group made. If I were the only person making
a decision about this case, I would do the same thing. The supervisor for
the PT in the dilemma was saying that it’s more therapy at no financial
burden to the patient. However, the financial burden might not be from
therapy costs, but it is from travel a great distance (200+ miles round trip).
It seems there might be an underlying reason for the supervisor to want
patients to increase visits, and it is not to benefit the patient which should
be a therapist’s primary concern.
4. I am still confused about if the number of patient’s seen declines, and it
could cause the VA to close, why not say that to staff so that everyone is
on the same page. In our scenario the supervisor said this was not the
case but many of the PT’s thought it could be the reason for the new
mandate. If in a situation where the VA (or any facility) would close if the
numbers dropped too low, I still think it would be unethical to bring in
patients more than they need to be seen. How would a PT weigh the facts
between their work establishment closing and their patient’s needs?
5. I learned from this assignment that the supervisor is not always correct. As
a PT we need to be able to research the evidence for best clinical
guidelines, be able to show correlation from the evidence to our patients
and why we believe it is best for them. PT’s may have a hard decision of
going against their supervisor’s whishes or possibly in severe circumstances
resigning from a job.