Step 1: Define what the reaction would be, based on popular opinion.
If the Bare Naked Ladies choose to do nothing and Sally’s eating disorder causes her to have adverse health outcomes, the reaction would be negative to the Bare Naked Ladies for not intervening when they saw someone in trouble.
If the Bare Naked Ladies did intervene they could have potentially saved Sally’s life, and they would receive a positive reaction.
Step 2: Make an ethical decision
The Bare Naked Ladies should intervene and try to help Sally.
Step 3: Monitor the results of the decision and repeat the process as changes occur.
Does the JMU student body agree with the decision in a Facebook poll?
Analysis: A strength of the social media model is its focus on a common consensus on what is ethical. Being on a tight-knit college campus, having the support of the student body on what is and isn't ethical is important. The club’s decision could also affect their retention and recruitment of future members based on how their actions are seen. A weakness of this model is that is it only as ethical as the society it is applied in. If JMU were a campus that valued Sally’s privacy over intervention, the ethical decision would change to doing nothing, baring the consequence of Sally’s health.
Social Media Model
Step 1: Identify the alternative actions that are possible and determine who would be affected by the decision.
Do nothing - this would affect Sally, the Bare Naked Ladies, Julie, and Sally’s parents.
Call Sally’s Parents- this would affect Sally, the Bare Naked Ladies, Julie, and Sally’s Parents.
Talk to Sally directly- this would affect Sally, the Bare Naked Ladies, Julie, and Sally’s Parents.
Step 2: For each alternative determine the costs and benefits for each of the groups affected.
Do nothing- This respects Sally’s desire for privacy, it also makes the Bare Naked ladies bystanders to any negative consequences Sally may face, it may preserve Sally and Julie’s friendship, doing nothing also keeps Sally’s parents in the dark.
Call Sally’s Parents- This violates Sally’s desire for privacy, but it alleviates the responsibility from the Bare Naked Ladies preventing them from being bystanders, this could cause a strain in Sally and Julie’s friendship since Julie violated Sally’s trust, this would include Sally’s parents in the decision making as they have intimate knowledge of Sally’s history with an eating disorder.
Talk to Sally directly- This violates Sally’s desire for privacy, it also makes the Bare Naked Ladies active participants in Sally’s health giving them some responsibility for her outcomes while possibly pushing Sally away, this could cause a strain on Sally and Julie’s friendship since Julie violated Sally’s trust, this approach also keeps Sally’s parents in the dark.
Step 3: Select the action that produces the greatest benefits over burdens for everyone effected.
Calling Sally’s parents gives the greatest benefit over burden.
Step 4: Predict the consequences of the action for all similar situations.
Calling Sally’s parents could result in them getting her help while she finishes out college, it could also result in them pulling her out of school to come back home, or in them not being concerned thinking that Sally has it under control.
Step 5: Make an Ethical decision.
The Bare Naked Ladies should call Sally’s parents with their concerns.
Step 6: Monitor the results of the decision and repeat the process as changes occur.
Does Cost:benefit stil create the most good for the parties involved?
Analysis: A strength of the utility model is its focus on outcomes for all parties involved. For this case study the outcomes of concern are Sally’s health, Sally and Julie’s friendship, and Sally’s parents right to know about their daughter’s health. A weakness of this model is its reliance on an accurate probability assessment, or picking the most likely outcome. Without all of the facts it is hard to know how Sally’s parents might react to a phone call from a campus organization.
Utility Model
Step 1: Define the right being upheld or violated
Sally’s right to privacy is being violated by Julie because she went behind Sally’s back by telling executive members Sally’s eating disorder history without her consent. Also the uninterrupted enjoyment of one’s health. By going to Sally about her health is infringing on her own personal freedom to do as she pleases.
Step 2: Why is it essential to human dignity? What Would happen if the right were denied?
Sally has the legal right to confidence but it conflicts with Julie’s moral right to do something if she think her friend is harming herself. Julie’s moral right is to go to someone for help or go directly to Sally to help her with this issue.
Step 3: Does the right conflict with other rights or with the rights of others? If rights conflict, rank them. Why is each right important? What are the consequences for human dignity and self-determination if the right is not protected?
Does Julie have the right to go to someone about Sally’s eating disorder without Sally’s permission? The consequences of Julie going to executive members and then getting more help for Sally may be that Sally gets defensive and falls into a deeper state of anorexia. If they all go to Sally’s parents without her permission her rights of privacy as an adult are being violated.
Step 4: Why doesn’t the rights principle apply or not apply?
The right’s principle applies, even though they are going against Sally’s right to privacy. They are respecting her by showing concern for her life and human dignity.
Step 5: Monitor all results and repeat the process
Monitor the effects of going and getting more help for Sally and then confronting her, if she ended up not falling back into the eating disorder then maybe it was not their place to infringe on her privacy.
Analysis: Strengths of the rights model is it takes into account the respect for one’s life and human dignity. Weakness is that legal rights can sometimes conflict with societal benefits and social liberties and privileges. It violates Sally’s right to her own personal freedom to do as she pleases.
Rights
Model
Step 1: Describe the general and specific ethical issue of the situation.
Should Julie get help and tell someone about Sally’s eating disorder even though she asked not to?
Step 2: Determine what would happen if the exception was adopted by others in similar situations.
If there was someone else in the Bare Naked Ladies heard the conversation between Julie and Sally is it acceptable for her to go and tell someone about Sally’s eating disorder even though she was not involved in the conversation should she tell someone about Sally’s eating disorder?
Step 3: Decide which exceptions are unacceptable if they became the rule for everyone
If it’s unacceptable for the other member in the Bare Naked Ladies to say something is it unacceptable for Julie to say something because she was asked not to?
Step 4: Consider what will have to be sacrificed if the exception becomes common.
Privacy would be sacrificed if the exception becomes common because then no conversations would be private between members.
Step 5: Make an ethical decision.
Under certain circumstance it is ethical to make this exception to make sure the health of Sally stays well and she doesn’t harm herself.
Step 6: Monitor the results of the decision.
See if after this exception is made within the Bare Naked Ladies if problems arise from this exception or if things go well.
Analysis: Strengths for this model is to make sure that everyone is equal with the decisions being made. If it is unacceptable for one member to do something why should it be acceptable for the other person to do something. The weakness for this model is people may think what’s unacceptable is actually acceptable to them and will portray the exception differently. The other member of the BNL may not think it is unacceptable for her to say something even though she wasn’t in the conversation because to her helping Sally is acceptable.
ExceptionsModel
Step 1: Freedom to choose
Giving Sally the freedom to choose as she pleases, even if it may harm her mental health. On the other hand Julie may have the freedom to choose to intervene and help Sally if she thinks there is a problem. Along with executive members and Julie the freedom to choose what steps are next to take with Sally.
Step 2: Permit people being affected the freedom to choose what they value. Are people being forced to choose something they do not value?
Julie needs to give the executive members all the information about Sally’s health status and the signs of anorexia. Making sure that this is a serious issue and that they really think Sally may have fallen back into anorexia. Once all the information is laid out they can take the next steps in how to confront the situation.
Step 3: Make an ethical decision.
Ethical = All the executive members have the information needed to decide to intervene with Sally directly or go about it indirectly.
Step 5: monitor all results and repeat the process.
Monitor and see what steps were taken in intervening with Sally, if they intervened directly see if it went well, if not repeat steps and try again.
Analysis: Strengths of this model would be it respects the equality of humans and everyone has the ability to determine the course of action of their own lives. By giving Sally adequate information in ways to get help, she can then use that information to determine a course of action for her own life. A weakness of this model is putting a lot of trust in people’s ability to make rational decisions. If executive members go up to Sally and give her information on how to get help for anorexia, she may be so far gone that she does not get help and ends up having a heart attack because her heart is weakened from not getting enough nutritious meals.
Choices
Model
Who gets the benefits and burdens?
Sally would receive the benefit of help and support if she has relapsed and the women speak to her about it. The burden would be on the executive members because they are either right in their suspicion and have to confront Sally and find her resources, or they are wrong and they lose a member or cause Sally to relapse.
Establish distribution criterion. What would be the most fair?
The distribution criterion lies between the exec members, Sally, and her friend Julie. The most fair would be that everyone assumes responsibility for their role in the situation and the executive board and Julie should help Sally if she does have a problem. Sally should also accept the help if she needs it and talk with professionals.
Select framework for just resolution of distribution disputes. Which outcome is fair? Which criterion for inequality is best?
The resolution that is most fair is for the women to confront Sally on their suspicion and accept whichever outcome occurs, whether that be Sally admitting to a problem and accepting help or Sally denying any problem and leaving the group.
Make an ethical decision
The women should confront Sally. They will be able to put their suspicions to rest one way or another and will end up helping their fellow member regardless. If she does have a problem, they can help her find resources to get better, and if she is not and there is another reason for her behavior and physical changes, they can be more educated on another condition and still help her manage whatever is ailing her. The benefits outweigh the burdens of confronting her.
Analysis: The weakness of this model is that it does not really fit this situation. There is not a real a benefit burden scale to distribute the situation on and so this does not necessarily apply. A strength of this model however is that it forces everyone to look at the outcomes and how much it will help or hurt the party in question, i.e. Sally.
Who gets the benefits and burdens?
Sally would receive the benefit of help and support if she has relapsed and the women speak to her about it. The burden would be on the executive members because they are either right in their suspicion and have to confront Sally and find her resources, or they are wrong and they lose a member or cause Sally to relapse.
Establish distribution criterion. What would be the most fair?
The distribution criterion lies between the exec members, Sally, and her friend Julie. The most fair would be that everyone assumes responsibility for their role in the situation and the executive board and Julie should help Sally if she does have a problem. Sally should also accept the help if she needs it and talk with professionals.
Select framework for just resolution of distribution disputes. Which outcome is fair? Which criterion for inequality is best?
The resolution that is most fair is for the women to confront Sally on their suspicion and accept whichever outcome occurs, whether that be Sally admitting to a problem and accepting help or Sally denying any problem and leaving the group.
Make an ethical decision
The women should confront Sally. They will be able to put their suspicions to rest one way or another and will end up helping their fellow member regardless. If she does have a problem, they can help her find resources to get better, and if she is not and there is another reason for her behavior and physical changes, they can be more educated on another condition and still help her manage whatever is ailing her. The benefits outweigh the burdens of confronting her.
Analysis: The weakness of this model is that it does not really fit this situation. There is not a real a benefit burden scale to distribute the situation on and so this does not necessarily apply. A strength of this model however is that it forces everyone to look at the outcomes and how much it will help or hurt the party in question, i.e. Sally.
Justice
Model
Step 1. Identify specific aspects of the common good are involved by zooming in and zooming out
BNL along with Julie need to zoom in to define the importance of Sally health and well-being. They can zoom out to define how Sally will be affected if BNL choose to do nothing about the situation and potentially let her continue to harm herself.
Step 2. Define which specific parts of the common good depend on the current situation for their functioning could move forward or backward by change
The common good can include the entire BNL group as well as those directly involved in Sally’s situation. If the executive members of BNL choose to do nothing about Sally’s situation, they risk letting her illness go so far that she can seriously harm herself and be hospitalized. This will create tension among all members of BNL and may cause Julie to question her membership in the group.
Step 3. Explain ethical obligations owed to the common good
The executive members owe all members of the group a safe, supportive environment. Julie owes Sally a trusting and supportive friendship, while Sally on the other hand, owes herself being able to accept proper help when it’s needed, especially pertaining to her own health and well-being.
Step 4. Determine whether the proposed action or situation conflicts with the ethical obligation
Julie will be breaking Sally’s trust if action is taken in this situation.
Step 5. Make an ethical decision
Julie has an obligation to her friend to enable her to get help when it’s needed, although she is breaking Sally’s trust, she is doing it for the safety of her friend. The executive members should chose to take Julie’s concerns seriously so they don’t further risk Sally’s health. They can chose to directly or indirectly approach the situation in order to help Sally.
Step 6. Monitor the results
Analysis: The strengths of this model enable the decision makers to look at and consider everyone involved in the situation and decide what course of action best reflects what will benefit those affected but the dilemma. There are some weaknesses within this model pertaining to this situation because there may be disagreement as to what constitutes the common good and over relative values when ideas conflict. The Common Good Model goes against individualism and the pursuit of self-interest, which in this case, may be considered going against Sally’s personal decisions.
Common Good
Model
Determine whether the situation helps you to or hinders you from becoming the type of professional you most want to be .
If the women on the executive board of Bare Naked ladies decide to confront Sally on her suspected problem, it would help them be the best version of women in power or health professionals if that’s the path they are going down. If the suspicion has become overwhelming and they feel they need to act, that could be considered the most responsible decision on behalf of Sally’s health and safety, since they are in a position of power being the executive board of an organization whose mission is body positivity and loving the skin you’re in.
If the women decide not to confront her, it could be seen as being the best versions of an executive board because they are not intervening based on hearsay, but are instead waiting for Sally to come to them if she has a problem.
Establish whether the situation corresponds to the industry’s reputation or vision of what it would like to be. This image is explained in health care providers’ mission and vision statements, the core values and the ethics code.
Since the women are part of Bare Naked Ladies, their mission is to spread healthy body image, body positivity, self-confidence, and loving natural beauty. If they think Sally is not upholding these ideals or has strayed from a healthy body image, it is their duty to help her see herself in a positive light and have a healthy body image.
The mission of Bare Naked Ladies is to spread body positivity and healthy body image but it does not say anything about confronting other members if they think they may have an eating disorder. It is their duty to promote these ideals but not to implement them on other women.
Ascertain whether the situation improves the delivery of high-quality, equitable health care
Some of the executive board feel that they should intervene, and if they do it could improve Sally’s overall health, if she indeed has relapsed like they suspect. If she does have a problem again, she can get professional help and recover if the women decide to talk to her privately and ask if she needs help taking the next steps.
Make an ethical decision. Actions that correspond to the virtues most people in the healthcare
industry want to be associated with are ethical.
The executive board should step in to fulfill their duty as Bare Naked Ladies executive members. Exec is supposed to uphold the mission of the organization the most and if they want to do so, they should confront Sally and try to help her. There is a chance that she has not relapsed, but the suspicion alone should be addressed so the women know that they did what they could to help their fellow member.
Analysis: The strengths of this model are that it makes the executive members remember their mission and challenge them to uphold those ideals. If they want to be the best members of a body positivity group, they need to be willing to confront one another if they suspect that another member is not living up to that ideal. A weakness is that not of all the executive members feel this path is upholding the ideals of Bare Naked Ladies. Some might think they are shaming a member if she has lost some weight or if she has another condition they don’t know about, it could be putting Sally’s appearance down unintentionally. Some might think that their only mission is to promote body positivity and healthy body image, not to question other members or women and intervene in their lives.
Monitor
Is this the best version of a Bare Naked Lady these women can be? If not then the choice would have to change but the choice made would have to continue to uphold the values of Bare Naked Ladies.