A Dentist Has Asked His Assistant To Perform A Cleaning

A Dentist Has Asked His Assistant To Perform A Cleaning On A Patient

A dentist asked his assistant to perform a cleaning on a patient. The assistant, having observed many cleanings, was confident in her ability to do a good job. However, she was not licensed to carry out such procedures and raised this concern. The dentist offered her $30 cash on the side, which she accepted. The assistant then performed the cleaning successfully, and the patient was unaware of the situation and expressed satisfaction with the visit.

Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that evaluates the morality of actions based on their consequences, specifically aiming to maximize overall happiness or utility and minimize suffering. In this scenario, the central question is whether the actions of the dentist and the assistant produced a net positive or negative outcome. From a utilitarian perspective, one must consider the potential benefits and harms associated with the decision, including the patient's health, safety, and satisfaction, as well as the implications for professional standards and trust in medical practice.

Applying utilitarian principles to this case involves weighing the immediate benefits of a successful cleaning performed by a confident and seemingly capable assistant against the risks and potential long-term consequences. The assistant performed the procedure successfully, which resulted in the patient’s satisfaction and no apparent harm. From the patient's perspective, the outcome was positive, and their well-being was preserved. However, the underlying issues of legality, professionalism, and safety are significant factors. Performing a dental cleaning without the proper licensure risks compromising patient health, potentially leading to harm if complications arise or if substandard care causes damage. The lack of transparency and deception involved in the side payment also diminish trust and could have wider implications for the integrity of the dental practice.

From a utilitarian standpoint, if the action’s positive consequences—such as the patient's satisfaction and the assistant’s confidence—outweighed the risks and potential harms, it could be considered morally permissible. However, the risks associated with unlicensed practice and the erosion of professional standards suggest that the overall utility might be compromised. The deception involved could lead to a loss of trust in the dental profession, which harm the broader community and future patients. In this case, although the specific procedure went smoothly and the patient’s satisfaction was high, the unethical conduct, potential legal consequences, and risk of harm suggest that the actions were morally questionable.

In my view, the dentist and assistant did not behave morally because their actions involved deception, breach of professional standards, and potential risk to patient health. While the immediate outcomes seem positive, the long-term consequences of undermining professional integrity and risking patient safety outweigh the short-term benefits. Ethical dental practice requires adherence to licensure standards and transparency to protect patient welfare and uphold trust in healthcare systems. Therefore, in accordance with utilitarianism and principles of professional ethics, their actions were morally unjustifiable, as they compromised the overall utility in the broader context of healthcare reliability and safety.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Moral Issues in Business (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2014). Ethics in Human Communication. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
• Gert, B., Culver, C., & Clouser, K. (2005). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press.
• Childress, J. F., & Siegler, M. (2019). Ethics and Clinical Practice. Clinical Ethics, 69(3), 190–195.