Main Street Occupational Therapy Clinic Ethical Issues

Medical professionals are faced with ethical decisions every day; however, the answers are not always simple or clear and the best decisions are not always made. In the following case study both ethical and unethical topics were presented. The case study reviews Main Street Occupational Therapy Clinic, where a current patient applies for an open position as a front office assistant. The case study states that the staff has concerns about hiring a current patient as well as concerns for the physical limitations the patient expresses during his treatment visits. Although the patient has claimed during his first interview he is able to perform all task without limitations. Due to the staff concerns, the patient is asked to agree to a second interview

that will involve a physical, done at another practice by an Occupational Therapist, to determine if he is able to accomplish the task the job requires. Taking a closer look at the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) Code of Ethics and the federal policies for employment from the U.S Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (USEEO) it can be determined that some aspects of the Main Street Occupational Therapy Clinic’s hiring decisions are unethical and some parts have the potential to be ethical.
First, many aspects of the Occupational Therapy Office decision are unethical.

After analyzing the AOTA Code of Ethics, the case study directly violates the principles and standard of conduct under non-maleficence, which states, " Avoid dual relationships, conflicts of interest, and situations in which a practitioner, educator, student, researcher, or employer is unable to maintain clear professional boundaries or objectivity” (“Occupational Therapy Code of Ethics” 4). By the Occupational Therapist working as both the professional and the employer to the patient and potential employee, there would be dual relationships involved which goes directly against the code of ethics. There is also conflict of interest because the employer knows more about the patient than what is stated on the application, which led to a biased application process. According to USEEO, “An employer also may not ask a job applicant to answer medical questions or take a medical exam before making a job offer” and the commission goes on to further state “The law allows an employer to condition a job offer on the applicant answering certain medical questions or successfully passing a medical exam, but only if all new employees in the same job have to answer the questions or take the exam.” (“Pre-Employment Inquiries”). This statement makes the Occupational Therapy Office’s decision unethical because the medical exam was administered before there was a conditional job offer and the exam was performed

because the practice knew the patient has pre-existing physical limitations.
Although most of the decisions made by the Occupational Therapy Clinic can be proven to be unethical, the first interview given to the patient was ethical.

As stated in the USEEO, “An employer may ask a job applicant whether they can perform the job and how they would perform the job” (“Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices”). When the clinic set up the first interview with the patient, the interview process was completely ethical because they only asked the patient if he could perform the job. Although the interviewers were aware that the patient had pre-existing limitations, they did not ask further questions and were professional in taking the patients word. Since no disability-related questions were asked at the time of the first interview the interview was within regulation of the USEEO and was completely

ethical.
Overall, the Main Street Occupational Therapy Clinic decision to allow a current patient to interview for a position was unethical and was the major error in the case study. However, the first interview done by the clinic was ethical and limited the questions to the specific needs and requirements pertaining to the job. As the interview process became biased and skewed because of pre-existing knowledge of the patient, unethical decisions and request were made that are unlawful and could be viewed as discriminatory to those with disabilities. Although it seems the clinic was trying to help the patient by allowing him to apply for the position, it only caused more challenges and difficulties for the staff that could have been avoided entirely.