Would it be ethical to do this?

Question

A radiologist or a medical technician, in the course of his job, discovers that the patient, who is an up and coming artist, has a fatal disease. The patient will see the doctor the next day and learn of his condition. Meanwhile, the radiologist or technician goes to a local art gallery and buys an expensive painting by the artist, reasoning that the value of the painting will multiply after the artist dies. Assume the radiologist or technician will not have occasion to deal with this patient's case again.

Has he done anything unethical?

autumnsmommy... this is purely hypothetical. I am not in this situation, nor is anyone I know.

Answer 1

An excellent question. As you ask, "anything unethical?", the answer is "yes." However, the significance of the unethicity is not clear.

Not significant, to the extent that it doesn't violate the doctor-patient relationship nor the "insider information" laws.

If the purchaser is a lover of art, and/or buying for remembrance's sake, it is not a misuse of "insider information" in the sense of monetary profiting, although such a knowing purchase reduces the supply.

However, the set of individuals who know of the demise prior to its occurance all operate under the same aegis. The friends of the artist are perhaps privileged in that wise, while the medico is somewhat less privileged. However, if the doctor-patient relationship is not compromised, there are no likely significant ethical, as in "legal restrictions on insider trading and profiting," reasons not to profit.

A more nuanced or socially acute perspective would reason from existing ethics as codified in law regarding insider information, and attempt to apply those ethics as personal law or guidelines, a kind of kantian categorical, e.g., if he believed that the reason for not codifying is lack of significant community interest/impelling interest to write such specific minutiae.

The key issue is timing of personal action re publicity of information, if there are no legal ("ethical") statutes in place. Thus the question generally imports the ethics of "fairness" re "information as power" and distribution of information.

Presumably, once the art dealer learns of the tragic news, she would increase the price. Thus, the art dealer is disadvantaged, and perhaps the artist or artist's estate, if on commission. These are likely not covered as ethical behavior in the law. It is fairly apparent that the majority of people, if "have not" in the matter, would find the presumed behavior unethical, while on the other hand, if they were in the position of the medico, they would in the majority do the same thing. Thus, a nice stasis between individual initiative (it is a speculative investment) and general agonism re someone making a profit, based on unequal distribution of information. Generally, the notion that all information in play in the public sphere is fair game for personal initiatve increase, obtains. Thus, in the spirit of the "insider information" statutes, the more ethical, albeit beyond the required level of codified community ethics, decision would be for the medico to wait, even actively checking the expected news venues, until the impedning or actual death of the artist were published, even slightly, and then if still interested, proceed directly to the gallery, and make the purchase. A slighter level of ethics applies to the notion of the medico assiduously checking the news, based on prior "insider information," however, this is mostly-obviated by the effort the medico makes, the initiative then occurring in the public arena, etc. A comparable example would be a weather forecaster who is privy to impending Florida hurricane path information, and waits until the forecast is made public, before shorting orange juice futures.

"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov, and "Climb the Highest Mountain," Mark Prophet, are worthwhile in this respect.

cordially,

j.

Answer 2

Ask yourself:
Does the anticipated profit come from non-public and confidential source(s)? This is known as "insider trading," and is considered a serious ethical breach in publicly traded companies. In the case of the artist/technician the issue may (or may not be) more nuanced. But I'd suggest that if there could be any reasonable question of impropriety, then such insider trading would be best to avoid.

Does the anticipated profit come at the expense of the person who created the art? In this case, No. The artist benefits from selling his art as he would have normally, although he may not have much chance to enjoy the income.

I think the most appropriate course of action for the medical technician is to wait until the news is made public. The technician can choose to invest only after the news is made public, and if he acts promptly he will still probably obtain a good deal on the art. And the technician cannot inform the patient, as that is the doctor's role.

In a larger sense, we can ask how profit is derived. If it is not a win-win situation, or if it is not a "reasonable" outcome for all parties involved, then the profit may be tainted and unethically derived. This argument is useful to understand how profits made from slavery is unethical, for example.

Answer 3

It's low, sure. Reprehensible to some, maybe. Unethical? Probably not. If I know something that could guarantee me a profit later on, then I'm probably going to act on it.

The other side of that issue is that the radiologist just gave the artist a lot of money. The artist could have a great last few months, or even be able to buy himself enough time for a cure. Who knows?

Answer 4

it incredibly is not black and white. it extremely is extremely gray while you're raped to illustrate, abortion could be a decision. The fetus isn't even developed yet even though it continues to be existence. So it incredibly is a ethical element for a rap sufferer to do. the toddler does not could advance up understanding his/mom does not decide on them and his/her father became right into a rapist. it incredibly is going to possibly be a decision consequently. If abortion is used as delivery administration, i for my section think of that's extremely incorrect and extremely unethical. could this be a decision? sure, however the guy who does this could be publicly generic as an extremely immoral and unethical guy or woman. faith shouldn't additionally be a factor of the communicate. As a non religious guy or woman, I should not be forced to do some thing by using a faith that i don't think in or prepare. which would be unethical besides.

Answer 5

Well, if you do, you better not tell a soul what you're doing because possibly in the future if the art does become valuable, and people knew that you were the radiologist working with him, they might add 2 + 2 and might not think it was such a cool thing to do.

Answer 6

It is for the radiologist. If I was the artist and came to know of it, I might be flattered or at least happy I sold one. I also might think the radiologist a little presumptuous, gambling on my work. Once you have put something up for sale, you forgo all rights to that property, you have alienated it from your will.

Answer 7

No, but it is depending on who's point of view your looking at. For the radiologist/medical technician it would be seen as being "ahead of the curb"

Answer 8

Yes, I believe that he would be committing an unethical act because he would essentially be attempting to profit from this man's death by way of his prior knowledge of the event.
By the way, ethics is not just a judgment call; it is also a subject of much legal concern especially since one's ethics often come into play in legal matters. Just because we can do something does not mean that we should.

Answer 9

Not literally unethical as long as the information is kept confidential. It does spark thoughts of a someone with a bit of a decadent personality.

Answer 10

This is just a really messed up question, lol. I mean, who would want anyone to know about this when they may find it very unethical?