The risk-management team raises issues of potential lawsuit if she is not treated and an advocate or lawyer files suit that she was discriminated against. The risk obligations team argues that although surgery is more expensive than chemo alone – it is less expensive than a protracted lawsuit.
They argue that even if surgery and chemo is more harmful and produces no extra benefits – it is better to err on the side of over treatment than risking a lawsuit for under-treatment.
Identify types of justice/ethical arguments laid out by the various members of the team.
Which do you think has the most merit and why?
In health care situations – is there a preferred justice approach? Why?
What are the competing obligations/values/interests in this case?
