Is it ethical/moral?

[vida]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Is it ethical or can ask if have morals: in the growth of proffession to talk bad or criticize about your collegue or partner with jealousy, to survive the competition? How many have made an opinion just by listening to others and by not trying to know the person? How many have experienced this situation? How did you handle? Is it even worth to prove your self right when you have not done any wrong?
Is this the survival of the fittest?

 

[sdn1977]

I don't understand what you are asking & I'm really not trying to be disrespectful, but the way you are phrasing your questions is not clear.

In what instance are you thinking one might criticize a fellow employee? Or are your referring to competition between corporations (oh....lets say......CVS or Walgreens, perhaps🙄)

If you have a personal situation you have experienced or perhaps, caused - either deliberately or inadvertantly...perhaps you could share the details.

But - remember - the race is not about you and your colleagues. Our whole purpose is about our patients.

 

[PumpkinSmasher]

Is it ethical or can ask if have morals: in the growth of proffession to talk bad or criticize about your collegue or partner with jealousy, to survive the competition? How many have made an opinion just by listening to others and by not trying to know the person? How many have experienced this situation? How did you handle? Is it even worth to prove your self right when you have not done any wrong?
Is this the survival of the fittest?

"Is it moral to talk badly about your partner because your jealous and want to get ahead?"
That can't seriously be your question?!?!

"Do we judge others on rumors and without all the facts?"
Yes, I do not mean to but it happens I like to think I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Those were the questions I could make out of your post, you may want to post again more clearly. Honestly, I think you need to enroll in an ethics class or a class that examines human nature!

 

[twester]

There was an interesting article in the New York Times magazine last Sunday about people with Williams syndrome. It's a genetic deletion that results in some pretty profound impairments in abstract reasoning, but also an amazing social gregariousness. Part of the discussion was about how humans socialize. I guess the prevailing theory so far is that other people want to see want a person can contribute, but they also want to know that a person is not a threat and can be trusted.

I recommend the article. It might clear up some of your questions.

 

[Quiksilver]

i took a medical ethics course in undergrad. Although in this situation, the medical aspect does not present itself but i do have an opinion.

There is an excellent piece of work done by John Rawls, a political philosopher that was around in our lifetime. His theory is somewhat of a long one so i will do my best to cut it down and condense it.

What he believes is a version of social contract theory. What society as a whole and individual members must guarantee include:
1. Each person has an equal claim to fully adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties.
Since we don't live in a utopia and communism obviously didn't work then;
2. If there are social or economic inequalities they must follow two conditions; first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

So to put it all into perspective, no you should not put down a coworker or partner if he/she is "better" then you. The reason is that i just told you. Following number 1, a basic right and liberty in this country is adequate basic health care (no matter how one might look at this, health care is readily accessible to anyone who needs this.)
Health care providers make a lot of money, they have more privileges then the least off in society, because of their increased responsibilities. They are to help people who are least advantaged. By downing a partner who would be better then you, this move would create an inequality from the people in number 1, but it would not be in their greatest benefit, because they are not getting the greatest care possible.
Had they come to you in the first place, even if better care is readily available; that is there decision. To destroy that avenue is unethical according to this theory.

 

[MountainPharmD]

What!?!?!?!