Rakesh is a responsible district level officer, who enjoys the trust of his higher officials. Knowing his honesty, the government entrusted him with the responsibility of identifying the beneficiaries under a health care scheme meant for senior citizens.
The criteria to be a beneficiary are the following:
(a) 60 years of age or above.
(b) Belonging to a reserved community.
(c) Family income of less than 1 Lakh rupees per annum.
(d) Post-treatment prognosis is likely to be high to make a positive difference to the quality of life of the beneficiary.
One day, an old couple visited Rakesh’s office with their application. They have been the residents of a village in his district since their birth. The old man is diagnosed with a rare condition that causes obstruction in the large intestine. As a consequence, he has severe abdominal pain frequently that prevents him from doing any physical labour. The couple has no children to support them. The expert surgeon whom they contacted is willing to do the surgery without charging any fee. However, the couple will have to bear the cost of incidental charges, such as medicines, hospitalization, etc., to the tune of rupees one lakh. The couple fulfils all the criteria except criterion ‘b’. However, any financial aid would certainly make a significant difference in their quality of life.
How should Rakesh respond to the situation? (250 words)

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2018

20 Marks

Introduction This case highlights the ethical dilemma of adhering strictly to rules versus demonstrating empathy and ensuring social justice for vulnerable individuals. The recent exclusion of certain vulnerable groups from government aid programs underscores the tension between bureaucratic processes and genuine need, reflecting a conflict between deontology and utilitarianism.

Stakeholder Identification Rakesh, the old couple, other eligible beneficiaries under the scheme, the government, the surgeon.

How should Rakesh respond to the situation?

Acknowledge the couple's situation with empathy: Rakesh should communicate respectfully, acknowledging their plight and the difficult position he is in due to the existing rules. This reflects the ethics of care and recognizes their inherent dignity.
Explore alternative avenues within the existing framework: Rakesh should investigate if any flexibility exists within the scheme's guidelines or if other government programs can offer financial assistance. This demonstrates a commitment to the common good approach and maximizes public welfare.
Seek clarification from higher authorities: If no alternative options are available within the scheme, Rakesh should consult his superiors, explaining the exceptional circumstances and requesting guidance on how to proceed ethically. This upholds the rule of law while also seeking a just outcome.
Document the case meticulously: Rakesh must maintain detailed records of the couple's application, his efforts to find solutions, and any communication with superiors. This ensures transparency and accountability, crucial aspects of the justice approach.
Consider advocating for policy change: If the situation reveals a systemic flaw in the scheme's criteria, Rakesh could advocate for policy changes to include individuals facing similar hardships. This reflects a proactive approach to social justice and aligns with Rawlsian justice principles of fairness and equity.
Transparency with the couple: Rakesh should maintain open communication with the couple, informing them of the steps he is taking and the potential outcomes. This respects their right to information and fosters trust, upholding virtue ethics.
Explore crowdfunding or charitable assistance: As a temporary measure, Rakesh could explore if local charities or crowdfunding initiatives can help the couple raise the necessary funds. This demonstrates a commitment to the common good and leverages community resources.
Personal contribution (optional): While not obligatory, Rakesh could consider contributing personally if he feels compelled to do so. This act of charity, although not a systemic solution, reflects a strong moral compass and personal virtue.

Conclusion This case underscores the importance of balancing adherence to rules with the need for empathy and flexibility in public service. The "Padma" awards given to common citizens for exceptional service highlight how individuals can make a positive impact within their communities. Moving forward, incorporating a mechanism for exceptional cases within government schemes, coupled with public awareness campaigns about available resources, can prevent similar ethical dilemmas and ensure that vulnerable individuals receive the support they need, promoting a just and equitable society.

Answer Length

Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.

In just 60 sec