Sneha, as a Senior Manager and head of procurement, is entrusted with ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in vendor selection. However, the participation of her brother, who is financially unstable, introduces a conflict of interest that may compromise the hospital’s standards and her own integrity.

Stakeholder Identification

Stakeholders in the case

(a) Sneha’s Course of Action:

• Recusal from the Procurement Committee: Sneha should recuse herself from the procurement process involving her brother’s firm, citing conflict of interest, and recommend an independent sub-committee or third-party evaluation for objective decision-making.

• Transparency and Disclosure: Sneha must disclose her relationship with the bidding vendor to the hospital management and the procurement committee. This reinforces her fiduciary duty and promotes ethical conduct within the organization.

• Ensuring Impartial Evaluation: Sneha should advocate for an independent and impartial evaluation process, possibly involving external experts, to guarantee that the selection is based solely on merit and the best interests of the hospital and its patients.

• Establish Clear Procurement Guidelines: Sneha should advise that hospital should establish clear, written procurement guidelines that address potential conflicts of interest and ensure fairness in all future procurement processes.

• Documentation and Audit Trail: A comprehensive documentation and audit trail of the entire procurement process should be maintained, ensuring accountability and demonstrating adherence to ethical practices.

(b) Justification for Sneha’s Actions:

• Integrity and Probity: By recusing herself, she demonstrates her personal integrity and adherence to high moral standards.

• Avoidance of Conflict of Interest: Transparency in disclosing familial ties upholds institutional ethics and prevents perceived bias.

• Organizational Trust and Credibility: Her action safeguards the hospital’s image and prevents allegations of favoritism or nepotism.

• Long-term Ethical Leadership: By upholding fairness, she sets an example for ethical governance and builds moral authority.

• Stakeholder Confidence: It assures patients, vendors, and staff that procurement is being handled fairly.

(c) Medical Ethics Compromised by Vested Interest:

1. Erosion of Trust: Favoring a relative in procurement undermines public trust in the healthcare system, raising concerns about the prioritization of personal gain over patient welfare. This violates the fiduciary duty owed to patients.

2. Compromised Patient Care: A biased selection process may result in the acquisition of suboptimal equipment, potentially compromising the quality of patient care. This directly contradicts the core principles of medical ethics.

3. Unfair Competition: Favouritism creates an uneven playing field for other vendors, undermining the principles of fair competition and transparency in the marketplace. This violates the rights of other businesses.

4. Loss of Integrity in Healthcare: Such practices erode the integrity of the healthcare profession, creating a perception of corruption and self-serving behavior. This damages the reputation of the medical community.

5. Violation of Justice and Fairness: Favoring a relative violates the principles of justice and fairness, as it denies other qualified vendors an equal opportunity to compete for the contract. This creates an unjust and inequitable system.

Sneha must act as a role model in ethical leadership, recognizing that perception of integrity is as important as actual integrity. Her decision to step aside ensures that the hospital’s commitment to quality care, fair procurement, and ethical responsibility is upheld.