About the Case
Discuss about the Counselling Ethics for Susan Lim.
Susan Lim is one of the prominent and reputed surgeons, practicing in Singapore. She received her fellowship in surgery from the Royal college of Surgeons, Edinburgh (Dr Susan Lim, 2016). She is registered with General Medical Council in London. She performed the Singapore’s first liver transplant and since then she made her mark in the medical profession. She came into the limelight after the death of Pengiran Anak Hajah Damit, the younger sister of the queen of Brunei and the cousin of sultan Brunei. The queen’s sister was Dr. Susan Lim’s patient and was undergoing a breast cancer treatment since 2001 and she died in the year 2007. Dr. Lim was accused of overcharging her patient for the medical treatment given by her (The Straits Times, 2016). The total medical bill was of whooping £12million which was much overstated in comparison to the professional fees charged in usual circumstances (Daily Mail, 2016). She was held responsible for overcharging her fees and manipulating the medical bills which directly question her professional ethics. In 2012, an enquiry was launched by Singapore Medical Council against her unethical behavior and she was found guilty (Asia one Health, 2016). Though it should be noted that the services provided by her was in accordance with the best of her professional knowledge and abilities and there were no complaints regarding the medical treatment provided by her.
Medical profession is often seen as a business of making money but rather it is a form of a social service which is given by an individual and in exchange accepting a reasonable consideration against the services provided. But in this case Dr. Susan was seen not only violating her professional ethics but also involved in an attempt to harass Brunei royal family by writing a letter to the foreign minister of Singapore, George Yeo that if the ongoing proceedings against her did not reach to a settlement then she will have to reveal some sensitive information about the queen’s sister and the royal family of Brunei. She also stated that if the information came into public light it will cause embarrassment to the royal family of Brunei and it will directly affect the relationship between Brunei and Singapore (John Harding, 2011). This was her attempt to threaten the Brunei Royal family and Singapore government to drop the legal suit against her. This suit has questioned her medical practice and her ethical conduct.
Stakeholders in the Case
The legal suit has directly affected the Brunei Royal family, Dr. Susan Lim, Singapore Medical Council and the Brunei government.
- Dr. Susan Lim: According to many public statements provided by Dr. Lim, she was stated saying that she has charged a reasonable fees for the professional services provided by her and she also offered a discount to the Royal family. She also argued that the treatment involved consultation and involvement of many foreign doctors and she too undertook many training sessions to provide best medical help to her client.
- The Brunei Government: The professional fee of Dr. Susan Lim was found to be unjustified and acceptable by the Brunei Government. On the statement of Dr. Lim providing discount to the royal family, they commented that they don’t seek any discount but rather ask for a fair and reasonable bill for the services rendered to the queen’s sister (Khalik, 2014).
- The Brunei Royal Family: It is clearly evident from the case that the Brunei royal family was exploited financially due to their status and reputation in Brunei. The patient was charged $24.8 million for a 110 days treatment from January 2007 to June 2007. The patient was kept in ICU during her last few days and the fees of Dr. Lim were increased to $250,000 to $450,000 per day. Also, Dr. Susan Lim indirectly threatened and harassed the royal family of disclosing their personal information which may affect their reputation.
- Singapore Medical Council: Singapore Medical council highly criticized the unprofessional behavior of Dr. Susan Lim and charging the royal patient unnecessarily based on their reputation and status. Dr. Lim was found guilty of professional misconduct and a fine of $10,000 was imposed on her along with a three year suspension on her professional practice (Khalik, 2013).
Ethical dilemma refers to a situation where an individual has to make decisions about the best course of action from many different courses of action and no matter what course of action an individual chooses; there are some compromises of ethics and principles. There is a situation of dilemma that what course of action should be chosen (Hanson, 2014).
There is no direct relationship between profits and medical health care services but in order to survive, a reasonable consideration in exchange of professional health care services is totally justified. The ethical dilemma in the above case is that Dr. Lin was clearly seen violating her professional ethics by overcharging and manipulating the medical bills with an aim to earn profits. Another ethical dilemma was in order to prevent her from the ongoing legal suit and take an easy escape; she threatened to reveal the sensitive information of her client which is confidential and revealed to her during the treatment.
Moral theories refer to theories which provide a fair basis to an individual judgment about the solution of the problem. It helps to arrive at a conclusion that the solution or the action is morally justified or not. The objectives of Moral theories are to identify that which course of action is right and wrong. Each moral theory contradicts each other views in certain context but still they are important in guiding an individual’s personal and professional behaviors (Drier, 2006). Although moral theories are follow a conservative and rigid approach in comparison to the Ethics which follow a flexible and practical approach. There are certain moral theories which help to resolve ethical dilemma faced by an individual in taking decision in practical life.
The ethical dilemma faced by Dr. Susan Lim can be can be studied and resolved with the help of moral theories and ethical decision making model. The moral theories can provide broad guidelines and assist Dr. Susan Lin that what kind of professional behavior is right and wrong. There are moral theories like Hard Universalism, soft universalism, teleology and deontology which are useful in both personal and professional context. They provide a framework to evaluate the morally acceptable and non-acceptable behavior.
The moral theory of teleology states that morality depends on the end result. It states that if the end result achieved by a person is good, the course of action or the approach of obtaining the end result is justified. An action can be morally right or wrong is dependent on whether the end result is generated is good or evil. If the end result is good then the course of action is justified else not. According to this theory, Dr. Susan Lim behavior of overcharging professional fees from the royal family is justified and morally right. Even though she charged unreasonably and with a view to earn extra profits, her main focus was to provide the best of the health care facility to her client. She argued that all the expenses were done to provide the treatment best in her interest (Broad, 2013). There were several disadvantages of this theory:
- The end result or the consequences is uncertain and the course of action to be followed may not justify the expected results.
- The actions that can be taken to achieve good results may or may not be morally right.
Ethical Dilemma
The moral theory of teleology justifies the actions and behavior of Dr. Susan Lim, whereas the theory of soft universalism clearly defies the attitude and action of her. Soft universalism states that there are certain rules and norms that are applicable to every individual, irrespective of where they live. These norms and rules form a strong basis of leading a good life. In Dr. Susan Lim case, being in such a noble profession it was her duty and responsibility to take utmost care of her patient and provide her with the best of the medical services provided. She has taken an undue advantage of her position and charged on her will which was completely wrong. What she was doing was a social service without any personal or professional motive. Also by threatening the royal family about disclosing their sensitive information is wrong. There is a relationship of utmost good faith among the patient and a doctor and no situation a doctor is allowed to share the information to any third party (Muller, 2008).
In both personal and professional life, an individual may encounter many incidences in which they have to take certain decisions. Whatever may be the situations the decisions should be morally correct. Professionals can take the help of ethical decision making model in order to take the right decision. The decision making process has been divided into eight stages. As a counselor, it is my responsibility to guide Dr. Susan Lim to take decisions keeping in mind the morals and ethics and which are acceptable both personally and professionally ((Bergmann & Brough, 2013).
- The first step involved defining the problem which mainly focused on the problems and root causes of the problem and how the problem can be resolved. The problem that can be clearly identified in the Dr. Susan Lim’s case is that she has overcharged the royal family of Brunei in the name of exceptional services provided by her. The royal family strongly believes that Dr. Lim has been a gold digger and has taken the advantage of her patient health to earn extra money.
- The second step involves collecting information from all relevant sources related to the case. Dr. Susan Lim should collect information about the same treatment given to her patient from other qualified doctors so as to form a reasonable basis for charging her professional fees from the clients. She may also consult General Medical Council and Singapore medical council.
- The third step involved judging the best alternatives. The best alternative in Dr. Lim’s case is to charge her consultation fee on the basis of fees charged by other medical professionals. Also, she can lower down her fees so as to retain back the public faith in her professional practice.
- The fourth step includes analyzing the best alternatives among all the alternatives available. Dr. Susan should analyze the above mentioned alternatives and choose what is best for her.
- The fifth step includes selecting the best alternatives. The most suitable alternative in the Dr. Lim’s case is to lower down her professional fees in order to retain back the faith of public in her medical practice and make them believe that for her rendering service is much more important that earning profit.
- The sixth step includes implementation of solution. Dr. Lim should prepare the medical bill by keeping in mind the reasonable professional fee and also by giving them some concession as a small gesture for the problems faced by the Brunei family.
- The last step is after implementation is to monitoring the results. When the Brunei family will receive the reasonable bill they may think of withdrawing back the filed suit.
- The last step is to measure the effectiveness of the solution was fit in accordance with the situation or not (Linder, 2013).
Conclusion
The above case was a clear example of unethical professional behavior on the part of Dr. Susan Lim. She was seen overcharging for the medical treatment and violating professional code of conduct by threatening to reveal confidential information about the patient and her related parties. Due to her unacceptable behavior she faced many legal proceeding. The behavior of Dr. Susan Lim was morally corrected as supported by the teleological theory whereas the theory of soft universalism strongly criticize the such unethical behavior of Dr. Lim. Dr. Susan Lim in order to take the right course of actions or decisions is advised to follow eight steps ethical decision making model in order to prevent her reputation and professional career from any further damage.
References
Dr Susan Lim. (2016). About Dr Susan Lim. Retrieved from https://www.drsusanlim.com/about on 11 March 2017.
Harding, J. (2011). Dr Susan Lim’s threatening letter to Foreign Minister George Yeo. Retrieved from https://johnharding.com/2011/03/dr-susan-lims-threatening-letter-to-foreign-minister-george-yeo/ on 11 March 2017.
Daily Mail. (2016). Top surgeon who performed the world’s first liver transplant faces being struck off for ‘charging the Queen of Brunei’s sister £12million for breast cancer treatment. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3421059/Top-doctor-performed-world-s-liver-transplant-faces-struck-charging-Queen-Brunei-s-sister-12million-breast-cancer-treatment.html on 11 March 2017.
Asia One Health. (2016). Surgeon billed Brunei patient $40m over 4 years. Retrieved from https://health.asiaone.com/health/health-news/surgeon-billed-brunei-patient-40m-over-4-years on 11 March 2017.
The Straits Times. (2016). Surgeon Susan Lim loses UK case over notice of suspension. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/surgeon-susan-lim-loses-uk-case-over-notice-of-suspension on 11 March 2017.
Khalik, S. (2014). Brunei health ministry wants a “fair” bill, not discount from Dr Susan Lim. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/brunei-health-ministry-wants-a-fair-bill-not-discount-from-dr-susan-lim on 11 March 2017.
Khalik, S. (2013). Susan Lim case: SMC’s lawyer says Brunei govt found fees exorbitant, unjustified. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/susan-lim-case-smcs-lawyer-says-brunei-govt-found-fees-exorbitant-unjustified on 11 March 2017.
Hanson, O.K. (2014). The Six Ethical Dilemmas Every Professional Faces. Retrieved from https://www.bentley.edu/sites/www.bentley.edu.centers/files/2014/10/22/Hanson%20VERIZON%20Monograph_2014-10%20Final%20(1).pdf on 11 March 2017.
Dreier, J. (2006). Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory. Retrieved from https://www.psicosocial.net/grupo-accion-comunitaria/centro-de-documentacion-gac/filosofia-y-teoria-comparada/etica/866-contemporary-debates-on-moral-theory/file on 11 March 2017.
Muller, S.S. (2008). In defense of soft universalism. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3684833.pdf on 11 March 2017.
Bergmann, S., & Brough, J. (2013). Reducing the Risk, Increasing the Promise: Strategies for Student Success. London: Routledge.
Linder, K. (2013). Crunch Time: 8 Steps for Making the Right Life Decisions at the Right Times. Austin: Greenleaf Book Group.
Broad, C.D. (2013). Five Types of Ethical Theory. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o2K4AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=teleological+theory&ots=BOKj84lT1l&sig=MiZf1REWsmTAUBcRXbzGMMre-jI#v=onepage&q=teleological%20theory&f=false on 11 March 2017.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
