by The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the deployment of new digital solutions as a response to mandatory social distancing and overwhelmed health care systems. Examples are virtual care and self-tracking technologies. We act at the interface of medical and business ethics when developing, marketing, and applying them. What should we know about discrepancies between medical and business ethics to be able to solve such problems together?
After having practiced medicine for years, I joined an executive Master of Business Administration program (EMBA). Already in the first week I was engaged in a discussion with an executive whether everything in an organization is to be led back to the management. I told about doctor’s accountability for misconduct and the colleague told about product selection.
It was an eye-opening experience for me to realize how differently doctors and executives interpret the setting of the same managerial question. In the face of ethical issues, it is especially important to understand that different points of view might derive from our different professional backgrounds.
“We act at the interface of medical and business ethics”
Based on my experience, there are three differences regarding ethics doctors and executives should be aware to efficiently solve ethical problems together.
First, medical ethics are strongly patient-focused.
Each individual patient must be able to trust that the doctor will prioritize patient’s best interests over his or her own. In contrast, business ethics focus on systems: organizations, societies, and stakeholders.
Secondly, the value basis of the medical profession is uniform and old.
The Hippocratic Oath derives from the third century before Christ and is still used worldwide in a modernized version. It results in cohesion of medical ethics. In contrary, business ethics are a younger discipline and in change. In 1970, Nobelist Milton Friedman stated that a corporate executive has direct responsibility only for the shareholders whose desire is to maximize profit [1]. Forty decades later Michael Porter introduced shared value as a critical perspective on Friedman’s corporate capitalism [2]. According to shared value, companies can create economic value by creating societal value if social, ethical, and environmental concerns are integrated into the corporate strategy. In business, individuals and companies apply stronger their own personal values and paradigms into their decision-making.
Thirdly, a doctor often feels himself deeply personally responsible.
A physician in contrast to a professional with a business background might be briefly overwhelmed with the ethical dimensions of the decisions in the business life. In the first place, a physician considers him or herself personally accountable for ethical issues in front of the lawsuit.
“The ethical concerns have their place in the boardroom.”
Medical practitioners and businesspeople need to understand the ethical essence of each other’s disciplines when working together. The ethical concerns have their place in the boardroom—especially, in the face of the current health care issues. By understanding each other better, we can collaborate more efficiently and make decisions that make all humankind healthier, wealthier, and happier.
References
[1] Friedman M. A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine 1970; 13:32–3.
[2] Porter ME, Kramer MR. Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review 2011; 89:62–77.
