Dentistry Practice Substance Abuse

After his marriage started to refund apart, Dr. lee became surrounded by frustrations. There were similarly galore(postnominal) patients with unrealistic expectations or who were in pain and wanted relievo immediately while at the same succession quetch about the cost. In addition, the practice experienced growing variant beca delectation to an increase in patient load, and Dr. leeward believed that there were too many patients to handle adequately and expediently. Remembering his days in college, he decided that using amphetamines would help him improve his capital punishment and thus help more patients in need of his services. Besides, Dr. Lee argued, he could al styles take a Valium to pacify down when the high got too intense. After all, as a dentist, he could easily fill a prescription and call it for self-medication.

Dr. Jones initially was unaw be of Dr. Lee's growing drug dependence, but, as time passed and Dr. Lee started to show more signs of drug dependence, such as increased irritability, hyperactivity, and prolonged hours of practice followed by unexplained absences, Dr. Jones asked him if anything was wrong. Dr. Lee angrily replied that everything was all right. Dr. Jones' suspicions rose and he started to wonder: " Should I confront my partner about this issue? Should I busy about the possible effect of Dr. Lee's behavior on patients under his c ar? To what extent would Dr. Lee's situation affect the practice? Should I report Dr. Lee to the dental board, the licens

Reviewing this study scenario and the honourable principles involved in it, various issues are increase that need to be taken into consideration. One of the sociological functions of the sick role is to remove obligation for one's behavior. Hence, the claim that drink or drug dependence is a sickness is a claim for exemption from responsibility. On the other hand, if the behavior is undertaken by dint of free choice, then one is deemed responsible for it. An issue raised by this gaffe is whether Dr. Lee is responsible for his drug use at various times throughout this sequence of events. From the case account, there is no reason to believe that Dr. Lee was mentally disturbed or in any other way out of control when he decided to use drugs.

Was he ethically responsible for that choice? If so, at which point did he lose control? Was he responsible for making choices that guide him on a path he eventually could not control?

Frankena, W. Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973.

There are many ethical principles involved in this case. They are shore leave, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, veracity, and fidelity. Each of these principles are discussed hereafter in the context of the case. The first ethical principle, autonomy, "provides the underpinning for kind concepts such as the right to privacy, freedom of choice, and the acceptance of responsibility for one's actions" (Rule 52). Dr. Lee has the right to keep his restrict hidden from his patients and his partner. However, his condition has a great likelihood of impairing his judgment and could jeopardize his patients' well-being. Dr. Lee's autonomy refers to the self-direction of the individual. The respect for his autonomy refers to the recognition that others, in this case Dr. Jones, have to hold and act on personal beliefs and values. Dr. Jones firmly believes that Dr. Lee's affliction could do harm to his patients.

In light of the ethical principles discussed in this paper
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.