Defining "Social Ethics": the "Unwritten Law" of Popular Unity
Taking a day of work today, I went through a colonoscopy at the local hospital. The once-every-few-years periodic exercise will be conducted throughout my life to check on whether I have been passed down the "colon polyp gene" from my mother. Needless to say, I have done it several times in the past, all of them happened to be in the States. Although the anesthetic is made much weaker to suit the Asian physique, my first and potentially only time in Japan has been without any problems.
In both countries, with their well-developed medical systems, what shines even more than the state-of-the-art medical systems is the sense of professional responsibility displayed by all staff at the hospitals. All legal documents are signed upfront to explain the associated risks, and fee structures with clear denotations of every cost are provided to the patients. Users of medical services in both US and Japan can expect the exact same treatment at the exact same cost shown on the documentations.
Of course, it could simply argued that the said hospitals go through all this trouble because they are afraid of legal troubles. Without repeated inspections by the relevant monitoring authorities, it would not hurt the medical facilities to rack up the medical costs a bit while save some cash by "simplifying" certain procedures. Especially in non-life-threatening procedures like colonoscopy, the anesthetized patients would never be able to tell what the doctor did differently.
So, we are glad developed countries have well-enforced laws to keep professional services safe and convenient. However, if we look to certain developing countries with deeply flawed legal systems, sometimes we can only depend on "professional ethics" to get the same professional treatments that we see in American and Japanese hospitals. Considering that every person has to be selfish at least in some situations, we must fearfully assume that certain personal incentives, i.e. "greed," has to fill in for the vacuum left by highly incomplete legal monitors.
Then, we can see that in developing countries that the concept of "social ethics," or what is good as defined by the public, tends to play a much more important role in everyday life. In absence of legal restrictions, it is up to the public to criticize malpractices, especially in essential matters such as medical care, food safety, environmental preservation. The developing country public especially become more sensitive to "greed," often making sure that already dangerous high levels of corruption in places like hospitals do not get too outrageous.
But, obviously, the public, no matter how vigilant, can only see so much. Without the overarching government apparatus in place to systematically monitor every segment of the society, the public can only bring to the surface a few publicly infamous cases of greed and corruption. And sadly, by the time the cases are brought to the knowledge of the public, the victims probably have suffered too much already...not to mention that millions of other petty cases of wrongdoing have slipped under the radar of public scrutiny.
The result? People in developing countries will continue to profiteer off malpractices, all in hidden secrecy unknown to the public. Once they save up enough, the corrupt emigrate to developed countries with their ill-gotten cash, freeing themselves from the public and the law of their home countries. Ironically, they spend their massive wealth in developed countries where they would have never had the opportunity to amass it in the same way.
A developed country is developed because the strong rule of law makes sure every cent earned by every person is earned righteously, without any attempt at over-charge or under-work in the process. Just as the simple colonoscopy procedure showed, by providing proper documents and denoting proper costs, the hospital is actually bridging "social ethics" with legal responsibility, making professionalism, rather than greed, the routine for essential services.
In both countries, with their well-developed medical systems, what shines even more than the state-of-the-art medical systems is the sense of professional responsibility displayed by all staff at the hospitals. All legal documents are signed upfront to explain the associated risks, and fee structures with clear denotations of every cost are provided to the patients. Users of medical services in both US and Japan can expect the exact same treatment at the exact same cost shown on the documentations.
Of course, it could simply argued that the said hospitals go through all this trouble because they are afraid of legal troubles. Without repeated inspections by the relevant monitoring authorities, it would not hurt the medical facilities to rack up the medical costs a bit while save some cash by "simplifying" certain procedures. Especially in non-life-threatening procedures like colonoscopy, the anesthetized patients would never be able to tell what the doctor did differently.
So, we are glad developed countries have well-enforced laws to keep professional services safe and convenient. However, if we look to certain developing countries with deeply flawed legal systems, sometimes we can only depend on "professional ethics" to get the same professional treatments that we see in American and Japanese hospitals. Considering that every person has to be selfish at least in some situations, we must fearfully assume that certain personal incentives, i.e. "greed," has to fill in for the vacuum left by highly incomplete legal monitors.
Then, we can see that in developing countries that the concept of "social ethics," or what is good as defined by the public, tends to play a much more important role in everyday life. In absence of legal restrictions, it is up to the public to criticize malpractices, especially in essential matters such as medical care, food safety, environmental preservation. The developing country public especially become more sensitive to "greed," often making sure that already dangerous high levels of corruption in places like hospitals do not get too outrageous.
But, obviously, the public, no matter how vigilant, can only see so much. Without the overarching government apparatus in place to systematically monitor every segment of the society, the public can only bring to the surface a few publicly infamous cases of greed and corruption. And sadly, by the time the cases are brought to the knowledge of the public, the victims probably have suffered too much already...not to mention that millions of other petty cases of wrongdoing have slipped under the radar of public scrutiny.
The result? People in developing countries will continue to profiteer off malpractices, all in hidden secrecy unknown to the public. Once they save up enough, the corrupt emigrate to developed countries with their ill-gotten cash, freeing themselves from the public and the law of their home countries. Ironically, they spend their massive wealth in developed countries where they would have never had the opportunity to amass it in the same way.
A developed country is developed because the strong rule of law makes sure every cent earned by every person is earned righteously, without any attempt at over-charge or under-work in the process. Just as the simple colonoscopy procedure showed, by providing proper documents and denoting proper costs, the hospital is actually bridging "social ethics" with legal responsibility, making professionalism, rather than greed, the routine for essential services.
Comments
Post a Comment