It can be said that, "the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice and the ability to practice what is right according to such principles often collide when organizations have to, for example, ration scarce resources." For your mini-assignment, please: 1) Identify some hypothetical examples, within the context of health care administration, where this statement holds true; 2) Describe how you, as the CEO of a health care facility, would ensure the principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice are applied in the midst of scarce resources (e. g. scarce personnel, scarce materials and scarce financial resources); 3) Describe the doctrine of Respondeat Superior and why a hospital should or should not concern itself with the negligent acts of its employees.

The matter of autonomy holds true in the case of delegated decision making to health care practitioners, beneficence where there are minimal chances for damages to participants in clinical trials and justice holds at these trials with the same treatment of all subjects.Usage of scarce resources imposed on different groups of patients could be done with equal treatment of different social groupsIf there is direct control by superior over employee, than this principle applies

Explanation:

The statement holds true for the matter of autonomy in the cases of an informed consent or a representative that is allowed to make an informed decision. Beneficence part holds true with clinical trials with high risk, that are designed so there is a minimal chance of potential harm to the ones participating in them. Justice means that at some clinical research, all subjects must be treated equally.Beneficence means the promotion of welfare of others. It is a goal of both health care practitioners and organizations. That would mean dispersing the limited staff equally to various social groups of patients. Dimension of justice also relates to this as it insists on equal treatment of different social groups throughout the entire population. Principle of autonomy would suggest that responsibility for decision making could and should be delegated to lower ends of organizational spectrum or health care practitioners.This theory implies that a superior could be held liable for the negligent acts of those subordinated to him. This of course applies to the extent of whether or not the employee conducted wrongdoing associated with the arrangement with employer. The question remains, as to what extent employer has control over employee. If he has no direct control over his service to patients, than this rule does not apply.