Case Study Format for Ethics

Course:
Topic:
Instructions:
1. Research: Select an ethical dilemma relevant to your field of study whether real or hypothetical. You
can find examples in news articles, academic journals, or professional codes of conduct.
2. Analysis: Write a case study following the provided format and answer the questions comprehensively.

CASE STUDY FORMAT:

I. Introduction
• Briefly introduce the ethical dilemma you chose.
• Include any relevant background information to set the context.
II. The Case
• Describe the specific situation or scenario that presents the ethical dilemma.
• Clearly outline the key players involved and their motivations.
III. Ethical Issues
• Identify the core ethical principles at stake in the dilemma (e.g., honesty, fairness, privacy).
• Explain how these principles are in conflict in this particular case.
IV. Analysis
• Analyze the potential consequences of each possible course of action associated with the dilemma.
V. Recommendations
• Based on your analysis, propose a solution or course of action that addresses the ethical concerns.
• Justify your recommendation by explaining how it aligns with ethical principles and considers the
stakeholders involved.
VI. Conclusion
• Briefly summarize the key points of the case study and your recommendation.
• Reflect on the broader implications of the chosen dilemma for your field of study.

Criteria Excellent (10 pts)
Introduction & Clear and concise
Background (10 pts) introduction. Relevant
background information
provided.
Description of the Compelling and detailed
Case (20 pts) description of the situation.
Key players and their
motivations are clearly
identified.
Ethical Issues (20 Core ethical principles are
pts) accurately identified and
explained. Clear
demonstration of how these
principles conflict.
Analysis (20 pts) Comprehensive analysis of
potential consequences for
each course of action.
Consideration of different
ethical frameworks.
Recommendations Well-developed and
(20 pts) justified solution based on
ethical principles and
stakeholder considerations.
Conclusion (10 pts) Clear and concise
summary. Reflection on
broader implications is
insightful.
Total Points: 100
Grading Scale:
• 90-100% = Excellent
• 80-89% = Good
• 70-79% = Fair
• Below 70% = Needs Improvement
RUBRICS
Good (9-8) Satisfactory (7-6) Needs Improvement
(5-4)
Introduction is clear but Introduction is unclear or Introduction is missing.
lacks some details. missing. Background No background
Background information information is irrelevant information provided.
is somewhat relevant. or missing.
Description of the Description of the Description of the
situation is clear, but situation is unclear or situation is missing or
some details are lacking. missing some key inaccurate. Key players
Key players and elements. Key players and motivations are not
motivations are and motivations are not identified.
somewhat identified. well-defined.
Most core ethical Some ethical principles Ethical principles are
principles are identified are identified, but not identified or
and explained. Some explanation is lacking. explained. No
explanation of how they Limited understanding of understanding of
conflict. conflict. conflict.
Analysis of Analysis is shallow or Analysis is missing.
consequences is present, missing. No
but lacks depth. Limited consideration of ethical
consideration of ethical frameworks.
frameworks.
Solution is presented but Solution is vague or Solution is missing or
lacks justification or poorly justified. irrelevant.
consideration of Stakeholder
stakeholders. considerations are
missing.
Summary is mostly Summary is unclear or Conclusion is missing.
clear. Reflection on missing. Reflection on
broader implications is broader implications is
somewhat present. lacking.
 EXAMPLE
I. Introduction
Ethical Dilemma: Patient privacy vs. potential harm to a third party.
Background: In healthcare settings, patient confidentiality is a cornerstone of trust and ethical practice.
However, situations can arise where a healthcare professional may discover information that poses a potential
risk of harm to another person.

II. The Case

A pregnant woman, Ms. Alyssa, tests positive for HIV during a routine prenatal checkup. During a counseling
session, Ms. Alyssa discloses to her doctor, Dr. Evans, that she has not informed her partner, Mr. Smith about
her HIV status. She is hesitant to disclose due to fear of abandonment and potential violence. Dr. Evans is aware
that Mr. Smith has not been tested and is likely unaware of his potential exposure.

Key Players:
• Ms. Alyssa: Patient who is HIV positive and has not informed her partner.
• Dr. Evans: Healthcare professional bound by patient confidentiality.
• Mr. Smith: Ms. Jones' partner who is unaware of his potential HIV exposure.
III. Ethical Issues
• Confidentiality: Dr. Evans has a duty to protect Ms. Alyssas' medical information. This is not only an
ethical principle but also mandated by law in many jurisdictions.
• Non-maleficence: Dr. Evans has an obligation to prevent harm to others, including Mr. Smith. The
Hippocratic Oath, a foundational principle in medicine, emphasizes the importance of "doing no harm."
• Autonomy: Ms. Alyssa has the right to make her own decisions regarding her health information. This
right is rooted in the respect for individual dignity and self-determination.

These principles are in conflict because protecting Ms. Alyssas' confidentiality could potentially expose Mr.
Smith to HIV, a serious and potentially life-threatening illness.

IV. Analysis

There are several possible courses of action Dr. Evans could take, each with its own set of consequences:

• Option 1: Maintain Confidentiality: Upholding confidentiality protects Ms. Alyssas' trust and
autonomy but risks Mr. Smith's health. This approach could also lead to future complications in Ms.
Jones' pregnancy if Mr. Smith remains unaware of his status.
 • Option 2: Disclose to Mr. Smith: Protects Mr. Smith's health by allowing him to get tested and
potentially receive treatment if necessary. However, this breaches Ms. Alyssas' confidentiality and
autonomy, potentially damaging the doctor-patient relationship and jeopardizing Ms. Alyssas' safety if
Mr. Smith reacts violently.
• Option 3: Encourage Disclosure: Dr. Evans can encourage Ms. Alyssa to disclose her status to Mr.
Smith while offering support and resources. This approach prioritizes shared decision-making but may
not guarantee disclosure, leaving Mr. Smith at risk.

V. Recommendations
Recommendation: Dr. Evans should prioritize a course of action that balances both confidentiality and
preventing harm. Here's how:
• Dr. Evans should discuss the risks and benefits of disclosure with Ms. Alyssa in a compassionate and
non-judgmental manner. This conversation should explore Ms. Alyssas' concerns about disclosure and
identify potential solutions to address her fears, such as providing resources for safe disclosure or
offering to be present during the conversation with Mr. Smith.
• Offer support and resources for Ms. Alyssa to disclose her status to Mr Smith. This could include
providing information about local domestic violence shelters or support groups for people living with
HIV.
• If Ms. Alyssa is adamantly opposed to disclosure, Dr. Evans can anonymously report the potential
exposure to the public health department. This allows intervention without breaching confidentiality
directly. Public health authorities can then reach out to Mr. Smith, encouraging him to get tested without
revealing Ms. Alyssas' identity. This approach respects Ms. Alyssas' autonomy while taking steps to
mitigate potential harm to Mr. Smith. This approach respects Ms. Alyssas' autonomy while taking steps
to mitigate potential harm to Mr. Smith. It prioritizes open communication and empowers Ms. Jones to
make an informed decision.
VI. Conclusion

This case study highlights the complexities of patient confidentiality in healthcare. The recommended approach
prioritizes both principles by encouraging disclosure while respecting patient autonomy and offering support.
This dilemma reflects the importance of open communication and trust in the doctor-patient relationship. In
broader healthcare ethics, this case emphasizes the need for balancing patient privacy with the public health
imperative of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. It also highlights the importance of ongoing dialogue
and the development of clear guidelines for healthcare professionals to navigate these challenging situations.