Substantive+Brief_Draft

As any child knows the first thing to do when one makes a mistake, is to deny it at all costs. Today’s legal infrastructure allows for secrets and justifies them with the right to privacy. However, these notions can allow firms to get away with sever damages. In the case of embryo mix-ups, the ethical notions are fairly obvious. I can say with confidence that no one want to have incorrect biological matter implanted into them and not be told, and no one wants somebody else possibly having their child, once again without one’s permission. However, what may be unethical for one person may be better for a society as a whole. This claim seems to very utilitarian, but is actually just socially economical. There are always trade-offs in ethics when conducting social policy. I conclude that in this case, what is better for the firm is also better for society. From a policy point of view, one can create a mandatory disclosure law which will ‘benefit’ the patients. There is a small possibility that the outcome of the situation will be inconsequential for the firm. In the interest of economic feasibility, it is the duty of the firm to maximize this possibility. Since there is no way to change the outcome, the best possibility, is to remove one party from the situation as much as possible. This will require a non-disclosure agreement with the party that will have the kid. Considering that the case can require compensation upwards of one million dollars, and public ridicule, this is a good option. I evaluate the pros and cons of mandatory disclosure law, preventing the firm from exploiting the party which is exploited and is not told, using parallels from malpractice law. From there I make a recommendation to the corporation, as someone who is keeping in mind public service and long-term consequences, not simply economic viability.
 * This is not the final version!!!**

I begin with the reasons to support mandatory disclosure. The first reason, in no particular order, is that mandatory disclosure creates competition between medical services, which lead to better quality overall. By preventing firms from ‘getting away’ with malpractice, a public record of mistakes allows other firms to take preventative measures. In this case preventative measures were taken. One suggestion for the prevention of this particular scenario is the implantation of a double-witnessing scenario. This means that there would be a primary and a secondary operator throughout the procedure, so that the work would be, in a sense, ‘peer-reviewed.’ This has many problems, which include: too much work for the staff, and too many expenses for the firm in the case that they hire someone solely for this procedure. Another solution would be to utilize technology which checks the barcodes of matching biological matter, preventing mix-up. These types of procedural laboratory safety measures would be taken when the embryo mix-up is taken to trial.

The second reason for mandatory disclosure law is to force an agenda of reputation on a corporation. By releasing malpractice of a firm, the corporation has to go through great lengths to gain back its prestige in case of malpractice. This forces corporation to think in the long-term, and not simply subsume non-disclosure into their expenses of malpractice. The third reason for mandatory disclosure is to break knowledge barriers between firms. By creating public communication of mistakes, other firms are more likely to research and develop technologies like the barcode one suggested previously. Knowledge barriers arise through the competitive nature of private industry. Non-disclosure allows the secrecy required to attain consumers. Mandatory non-disclosure breaks down the competition barriers for better quality as in health mechanisms. As a policy maker one needs to keep the safety of citizens in mind. Implementing a policy such as this creates respect for the government toward the welfare of its public.

In my opinion the cons surprisingly outweigh these advantages. Partly, it should be considered that many of these advantages can be attained without mandatory disclosure law. The first cost of mandatory disclosure is the use of ‘defensive medicine’ to avoid the constant lawsuits that would arise through mandatory disclosure. The Office of Technology Assessment identifies ‘defensive medicine’ as, “occurring when doctors order tests, procedures, or visits, or avoid high-risk patients or procedures, primarily (but not necessarily solely) to reduce their exposure to malpractice liability. When physicians do extra tests or procedures primarily to reduce malpractice liability, they are practicing positive defensive medicine. When they avoid certain patients or procedures, they are practicing negative defensive medicine.” This can lead to medicine of bad quality. In the interest of science it is important for government to provide incentives to prevent this. One of these incentives in non-disclosure law.

Further repercussions of defensive medicine, is the cost to health–insurers through the extra tests, follow-ups, and lawsuits resulting from mandatory disclosure. Much of this is unimportant, for much medical malpractice occurs through mistakes. It is the job of the government to help prevent mistakes, but also to make sure that there aren’t punitive measures, in the case of accidents. Also, it is important to keep in mind that accidents are impossible to remove completely. There can be many frivolous lawsuits that arise, due to mistakes that do not have severe repercussions that would not arise otherwise. Following this, there would be less access to services due to doctors only seeking, ‘low-risk’ patients. It is important to the nature of science and knowledge that diversity of technique be encouraged. Creating mandatory disclosure makes risks harder to take. Risks that are necessary for science.

Finally there is the emotional cost of malpractice litigation. This argument can be made either way. However, in the case of mandatory disclosure, the dependability of the medical field will be reduced. It is important to allow the public to attain information, but that is different from sensationalizing certain issues that are inevitable, such as possibility of mistakes, which arise in any field. In conclusion I would not advocate mandatory disclosure. Medical practice simply happens to be field where the stakes are high. Due to this it is important to protect this lucrative, essential, yet sensitive sector. Health and safety are important, but they can be implemented though a series of checks instead of through prevention. This implies that the recommendation for the company would be complete a strict non-disclosure agreement with the first couple, which prevents them from telling the second couple of their incorrectly implanted eggs. It is important not to stagnate science as it penetrates more and more into society.

See Malpractice for sources ss