Legal And Ethical Scenarios: Select Two Of The Scenarios

Legal And Ethical Scenariosselecttwoof The Scenarios Provided Below A

Select two of the scenarios provided below. Analyze the facts in the scenarios and develop appropriate arguments/resolutions and recommendations. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples by using at least one scholarly source from the SUO Library in addition to your textbook for each scenario. Do not copy the scenarios into the paper. Cite your sources in APA format on a separate page.

Paper For Above instruction

This paper will analyze two selected ethical and legal scenarios, exploring the complex issues they present and offering well-supported arguments, resolutions, and recommendations. The scenarios involve critical questions regarding medical arbitration clauses, due process in academic misconduct, and ethical boundaries between corporate and regulatory entities. Each analysis integrates pertinent legal principles, case law, and scholarly sources, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of ethical standards and legal obligations in these contexts.

Scenario 1: Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alana Mendes, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, was admitted to the Bay Pines Rehabilitation Center, with her daughter Juanita signing the admission agreement due to Alana’s mental incapacity. The agreement contained a clause requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration. After her release, Alana sued for negligent treatment. The center moved to enforce arbitration, raising questions about the ethics of mandatory arbitration clauses in healthcare settings, especially involving patients with limited mental capacity. This scenario touches on whether such arbitration clauses should be enforceable, whether there is real bargaining power over these terms, and whether a party with diminished capacity can be bound by an arbitration agreement signed by a legal representative.

Ethically, imposing mandatory arbitration in healthcare raises concerns about patient rights to access courts, especially when patients have limited capacity to consent or understand contractual terms. Legal principles, such as the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), generally favor enforcement but also recognize exceptions when consent is involuntary or unconscionable (Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 1985). Courts increasingly scrutinize arbitration clauses in cases involving vulnerable populations, emphasizing fairness and informed consent. For instance, in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, the court held that arbitration agreements must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily (McClellan & Paschall, 2014).

With regard to mental capacity, the key issue is whether Juanita, acting as authorized agent, had the legal authority to bind Alana to arbitration. Legal doctrine generally permits next-of-kin or legal representatives to consent on behalf of incapacitated persons, but this usually depends on clear documentation and the scope of authority. Ethically, healthcare providers should ensure that patients or their representatives understand arbitration clauses, and there should be a mechanism to opt-out if necessary. The American Medical Association emphasizes shared decision-making and transparency, which conflicts with the idea of mandatory arbitration that limits patient access to judicial remedies (AMA Code of Medical Ethics, 2020).

In conclusion, while arbitration can be beneficial by providing faster dispute resolution, its mandatory enforcement in situations involving patients with cognitive impairments raises significant ethical concerns. A balanced approach advocates for informed consent and the possibility of challenging arbitration clauses, especially when the patient’s capacity was compromised at the time of signing. Courts might scrutinize such clauses under principles of unconscionability or lack of informed consent, underscoring that imposing arbitration should not disadvantage vulnerable individuals.

Scenario 2: Due Process and ADR

In 2016, allegations of widespread plagiarism in the MBA program at Western State University prompted disciplinary actions against faculty members, including Assistant Professor Mark Day. The university publicly accused him of misconduct but did not afford him a public hearing or opportunity to contest the accusations before disseminating the information. Day subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming violation of his due process rights. The issue centers on what due process requires in disciplinary proceedings involving academic misconduct, especially when allegations are made publicly.

Due process, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, generally requires notice of charges, a fair hearing, and an opportunity to be heard (Mathews v. Eldridge, 1976). In academic settings, courts have recognized that although the university has a scholarly and administrative interest in maintaining integrity, faculty members are entitled to notice of allegations and a chance to respond before significant sanctions or public disclosures occur (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). In Day’s case, the university's failure to provide an opportunity for him to clear his name publicly may constitute a violation of procedural due process.

Regarding the inclusion of an arbitration clause, if Day’s employment contract contained a mandatory arbitration agreement, the university could argue that disputes are subject to arbitration rather than court litigation. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts generally uphold arbitration clauses, and disputes over due process rights could be compelled into arbitration if such clauses exist (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 2011). However, courts may also refuse to enforce arbitration clauses if it is found that they violate public policy or fundamental fairness, such as in cases involving constitutional rights (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 1983). If the university sought dismissal based solely on an arbitration clause, the outcome would depend on whether the clause was valid, explicitly covered due process claims, and whether enforcing it would undermine legal standards of procedural fairness.

In summary, due process in academic misconduct cases requires transparency, notice, and an opportunity to be heard. While arbitration clauses can streamline dispute resolution, their enforceability must be balanced against constitutional protections. Courts tend to scrutinize arbitration agreements that conflict with fundamental rights, highlighting that procedural fairness cannot be compromised to expedite disciplinary processes.

Conclusion

These scenarios demonstrate the importance of ethical considerations and legal protections in dispute resolution and disciplinary procedures. In healthcare contexts, ensuring informed consent and protecting vulnerable populations from the potentially adverse effects of mandatory arbitration is critical. Likewise, in academia, safeguarding procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing remains paramount, even when arbitration clauses are present. Both cases underscore the necessity of balancing efficiency and rights within legal and ethical frameworks, supported by relevant case law and scholarly analysis.

References

• American Medical Association. (2020). Code of Medical Ethics. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ama-code-medical-ethics
• Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
• Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985).
• Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983).
• McClellan, S., & Paschall, J. (2014). Enforcing arbitration agreements: Ethical considerations in healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(3), 123-130.
• Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
• Gossett, R. (2017). Academic integrity and due process: Legal standards for disciplinary procedures in higher education. Journal of College Law, 45, 97-118.
• American Bar Association. (2019). Principles of Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings. ABA Publishing.
• Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 (2023).
• In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 634 F.3d 187 (2nd Cir. 2011).