Website Analysis and Evaluation

As human beings, we are forced to accept the inevitability of being unwillingly confronted with situations that test the strength of our morality and character. In the midst of deep moral conflict we become immensely introspective and we follow our intuition with the hopes of it guiding us towards the morally correct decision. However, how can we be sure that we have acted morally in a situation that is so morbid and perverse that our intuition is completely torn? This is the dilemma that is faced by an indigent patient who has been mistakenly admitted to the hospital as is an inpatient strictly for dialysis treatment. However, the hospital does not, as a general rule, provide only dialysis treatment for patients. Since hospital must act justly and equitably in making resources available to patients so with this I will gladly states that I will keep that indigent patient in the hospital. Due to the nature of the situation, I will also provide more services to that patient in order to exempt the hospital from fraud. I will advise the administrator that a patient can have more problems and will check for those so that the taxpayers can find reasonable reason for that patient. In addition, life is more valuable than money and all laws, so therefore, I would without a doubt provide the dialysis. Because the laws in America provide such a right that a patient must receive treatment no matter what the circumstances. In other not to be fraudulent in any shape or form, I would tell the administrator to make sure to provide something outside the dialysis so that fraudulent activity can be eliminated. So, while a hospital might validly decide to give treatment without interference of taxpayers’ liability even though it is funded by them. Ethically and legally, this case requires that this patient must at least gets all that he can get because life is more valuable than money. Without people, there would neither laws nor society. So therefore, laws should not be a barrier...