WEEK 5 ETHICAL EXERCISE 1 Week 5 Ethical Exercise Courts are rarely concerned with the fairness of a contract between two parties. In some situations, courts will refuse to enforce a contract if it is unfair to the innocent party. To put it another way, these are called "unconscionable contracts," and they occur when one party exploits another. The stronger side persuades, the weaker one to sign a deal that is detrimental to their interests. Agreements of this nature may not be enforced since they may contravene public policy. If the conditions of a contract are so oppressive, one-sided, or unfair that they "shock the conscience" of the court, it is an unconscionable contract. Whether Internet prescription contracts "shock the conscience" of the court, then, is the question at hand. Physicians, after all, are educated to examine patients, identify medical disorders, and consider treatment options. There is no way for a physician to verify a patient's health status objectively or whether they comprehend the risks associated with taking medication online. Online, a doctor cannot detect if a patient is being honest about their age and weight, two factors that significantly impact whether or not a prescription is given. In addition, physicians who prescribe medications online are unable to supervise the use and effectiveness of these drugs. A few courts have dealt with this problem, but no court has ruled that internet prescriptions are unethical. The court found no evidence of deception, oppression, or misuse of superior bargaining power, and hence the physician's actions and contracts were not unconscionable. Many broad details regarding the medications and their adverse effects, online surveys for health records, and disclaimers of liability were posted on a website utilized by the physician. A bodyweight calculator was offered on the website to establish whether or not the person needed to take Meridia because they were more than twenty-five pounds overweight. The WEEK 5 ETHICAL EXERCISE 2 court declined to intervene and deem the contracts unconscionable because it determined that the people had received at least what they bargained for, which is the prescription pharmaceuticals they sought (Nation III, 2005). There should still be no internet prescriptions for all forms of medication, even if doctors are not misleading. Although online-based prescription is viral in the U.S, it is observed that it's challenging for "regulating non-U.S. pharmacies is due to their off-shore location" (Montoya & Jano, 2007). As long as the doctor is not scheming, he or she might try to get a prescription for a drug the patient should not have. Individuals conducted online questionnaires to find out more information about the drugs, their adverse effects, and how to get the prescription they wanted. This can have severe repercussions for both parties and their clients. They may become addicted to a substance if they begin taking it for an external benefit. As far as doctors are concerned, it is impossible to tell whether or not a patient has filled out their medical history correctly. Imagine how many individuals would try to get a prescription for a hard-to-obtain medication online if they could not detect such a falsehood. Using the internet to prescribe drugs would undoubtedly "shock the conscience" of a judge or jury. WEEK 5 ETHICAL EXERCISE 3 References Nation III, G. A. (2005). Obscene contracts: the doctrine of unconscionability and hospital billing of the uninsured. Ky. LJ, 94, 101. Montoya, I. D., & Jano, E. (2007). Online pharmacies: safety and regulatory considerations. International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation, 37(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.2190/1243-P8Q8-6827-H7TQ
