What are the major moral or ethical issues raised by the case

[meteor_slideshow slideshow="slide1"]

SMGT 503

SMGT 503

Case Analysis Instructions

In evaluating your case analyses, instructors will apply the Case Analysis Grading Rubric. Each case analysis should be a 5–7 pages and follow the current APA guidelines. Title page and reference page ARE INCLUDED IN THE PAGE COUNT and current APA formatting is required.

I copied and pasted the case you have to read to do the analysis on. Its bolded.

The basic guidelines for analyzing ethical case are as follows:

1. Issues

a. What are the major moral or ethical issues raised by the case?

b. What are the major factual issues raised by the case?

c. What are the major conceptual issues raised by this case?

d. Who are the major stakeholders in this case?

e. How are the issues in this case related to making ethical decisions?

2. Options

a. What are the major views on the conceptual issues raised by this case?

b. What are the main alternative actions or policies that might be followed in responding to the ethical issues in this case?

c. What facts are unknown or disputed that might be relevant to deciding this case (may require research to determine some facts)?

3. Ethical Arguments

a. Determine which of the four moral standards (egoism, natural law, utilitarianism, and respect for persons) apply to this case.

b. Identify the moral principles that can be invoked to support a conclusion as to what ought to be done ethically in this case or similar cases.

c. Determine whether the different moral standards yield converging or diverging judgments about what ought to be done.

4. Decision or Conclusion

a. Decide which of the identified options you would recommend or judge to be the ethically best way to deal with the issue presented in this case based upon which option has the strongest ethical reasons behind it.

b. Determine how a critic of your position might try to argue against it using other ethical reasons, and present a rebuttal or counter-argument in defense of your judgment.

c. Include a scripture to support your decision.

The purpose of these reports is to give you a chance to work out your own view about the issues raised by each case and to practice the procedure for analyzing ethical dilemmas. It is important that you include biblical references to defend your stance.

HERE IS THE CASE YOU HAVE TO READ FIRST

CASE 7-2 Barron v. PGA Tour, Inc. (K.)

Doug Barron is a professional golfer who joined the PGA Tour in January of 1995. In 1987, when he was eighteen years old, he was diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse and was prescribed a beta blocker. Propranolol, to treat the condition. Without Propranolol, Barron expe- riences a racing heartbeat and chest pains. In 2005, Barron was found to have low testosterone levels and was prescribed monthly doses of exogenous testosterone in order to maintain his testosterone level within the normal range. Side effects of low testosterone can include fatigue, lethargy, loss of sex drive, and a compromised immune system, resulting in an increased incidence of infection. The PGA Tour establishes rules and policies that govern the conduct of golfers who participate in PGA and Nationwide Tour events. Golfers must pay dues to the PGA Tour and agree to abide by the rules and policies established by the PGA Tour in order to participate in PGA Tour events. In 2008, the PGA Tour promulgated its Anti-Dopingk Program (“the Pro- gram”), and on July 3, 2008, the Program went into effect. The Program was developed in conjunction with the major golf tours and governing bodies around the world and incorporated input from leading experts in the field of anti-doping. The Program was modeled on the standards of the World Anti-Doping Agency and its Anti-Doping Code. The Program contains a list of “Prohibited Substances and Methods,” and included on this list of banned substances are Propranolol and exogenous testosterone. The Program allows players to apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”). If granted, the TUE allows the player to use the substance despite its status on the list of banned substances. In order to obtain a TUE, the player must submit an appli- cation and supporting medical information. This information is submit- ted to a TUE Committee comprised of an independent medical advisor and one or more independent specialists of the medical advisor’s choosing with experience in the area relevant to the player’s illness or condi- tion. The TUE Committee reviews the medical information and recommends to the PGA Tour whether to grant a TUE. Under the Program, a player may obtain a TUE if four criteria are met: a. The player would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition (the use of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to increase “low-normal” levels of any Endogenous hormone is not considered an acceptable ther- apeutic intervention); and b. The therapeutic use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health fol- lowing the treatment of a legitimate medical condition; and c. There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the oth- erwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method; and d. The necessity for the use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Pro- hibited Method is not a consequence, wholly or in part, of a prior non- therapeutic use of any substance on the PGA Tour Prohibited List. Prior to the effective date of the Program, on June 23, 2008, Barron submitted two TUE applications to the PGA Tour. The first application sought an exemption for the use of the beta blocker Propranolol. This application was reviewed by a TUE Committee consisting of a panel of doctors, including cardiologists. The application to use Propranolol was denied by the TUE Committee on October 10, 2008. Barron appealed the decision in accordance with the Program and the appeal was denied by the PGA Tour on October 22, 2008. Barron was instructed by the PGA Tour to begin weaning himself off of Propranolol. After his applica- tion was denied, Barron began reducing his dosage of Propranolol under a course of treatment prescribed by his medical doctor. He initially started the treatment with 160 milligrams of Propranolol, and by June of 2009, he had reduced his dosage to 40 milligrams. The second application for a TUE sought an exemption for the use of testosterone. This application was reviewed by a TUE Committee con- sisting of a panel of doctors, including endocrinologists. At the request of the TUE Committee, Barron was reexamined by an independent endocrinologist. At the request of the independent endocrinologist, Barron stopped receiving monthly testosterone injections in October of 2008. The independent endocrinologist then took Barron’s blood samples in November and December of 2008. The November test indicated Barron’s Testosterone level was 325, while the December test indicated that it was 296. Both of these levels were within the normal range. The TUE Committee denied his application to use testosterone on January 21, 2009. Barron did not appeal the TUE Committee’s decision. Barron admits that, in early June of 2009, he received a single dose of exogenous testosterone from his medical doctor. Barron then played in the St. Jude Classic golf tournament in Memphis, Tennessee, which began on June 8, 2009. In conjunction with the tournament, he signed a tournament application form, confirming his understanding that he was required to abide by the Program. On June 11, 2009, Barron was tested in connection with his play in the tournament. His sample was found to contain evidence of Propranolol and testosterone. Barron did not dis- pute the test results and admitted to continued use of both Propra- nolol and testosterone. Following the positive tests, Barron provided additional medical information to the PGA Tour on July 23, 2009, and August 12, 2009. The TUE Committees reviewed the additional informa- tion provided by Barron and found it insufficient to justify TUEs for the use of Propranolol and testosterone. On October 20, 2009, the Commissioner of the PGA Tour, Timothy W. Finchem, provided Barron with a written decision suspending him for one year from participating in PGA Tour or Nationwide Tour competi- tions and any related activities (“PGA Tour events”), from September 20, 2009, to September 20, 2010. In that letter, Commissioner Finchem wrote as follows: On June 23, 2008, you submitted a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) application under the Program requesting that you be allowed to continue to use exogenous Testosterone and Propranolol. At that time, you were given full opportunity to medically justify your use of both substances. Your Therapeutic Use Exemption Application for Propranolol was denied by the PGA TOUR TUE Committee on October 10, 2008. You appealed that decision and your appeal was denied by Commissioner Finchem on October 22, 2008. Your applica- tion to use exogenous Testosterone was denied by the PGA TOUR TUE Committee on January 20, 2009. You did not choose to appeal that decision. As of October 23, 2008, you should have begun weaning off of Propranolol. As of January 21, 2009, you should have totally stopped using exogenous Testosterone. The PGA TOUR heard nothing further from you in 2009 concerning your use of Propranolol and exogenous Testosterone. We assumed, consistent with the denials of your Therapeutic Use Exemption applications, that your use of these Prohibited Substances had been discontinued. On June 11, 2009, you provided a doping control sample. That sample was found to contain evidence of both Propranolol and exogenous testosterone. That laboratory finding is not contested, since you have subsequently admitted continuing to use both substances. We invited you to submit any new medical information that might mitigate your continued use of these substances in total disregard of the denial of your TUE applications. You submitted additional information on July 23, 2009, and August 12, 2009. The information that you provided was reviewed by the PGA TOUR TUE Committee and again, no justification for your use of Propranolol or exogenous testosterone was found. Pursuant to Section H(5) of the Program, Barron could have appealed the PGA Tour’s ruling within seven days of receiving the notice of sanction. According to the PGA Tour, Commissioner Finchem told Barron during a telephone call that Barron “was unlikely to prevail in his appeal” and that “the third-party hearing officer would not be bound by the sanction imposed and . . . could impose a more significant sanction as a result of Mr. Barron’s use of two banned substances and as a result of aggravated circumstances.” According to Barron, the Commissioner said “in no uncertain terms that he would be wasting his time to appeal and that his punishment could be doubled if he appealed and lost.” Barron did not appeal the suspension. Pursuant to Section 2(M) of the Program, the PGA Tour notified Barron that it would issue a press release regarding his one-year suspension, and invited Barron to participate in the press release by proposing a statement to be read in conjunction with the PGA Tour’s statement. On October 30, 2009, counsel for Barron sent a letter to Andrew B. Levinson, Executive Director of the Program, stating that Barron wanted the PGA Tour’s press release to include the following statement: “Doug Barron disagrees with the PGA Tour’s conclusion that he violated their Anti-Doping policy and the resulting sanction. All of the medications that were taken by Doug Barron were prescribed by his Medical Doctors for diagnosed medical conditions.” The PGA Tour declined to release Barron’s proposed statement, and instead, the following statement was released: “I would like to apologize for any negative perception of the TOUR or its players resulting from my suspension. I want my fellow TOUR members and the fans to know that I did not intend to gain an unfair competitive advantage or enhance my performance while on TOUR.” As a result of the one-year suspension, Barron alleges that the PGA Tour has violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because he suffers from abnormally low testosterone, which causes him to have a reduced sex drive, experience fatigue, and have a compro- mised immune system, and that by refusing to allow him to take exoge- nous testosterone and suspending him for using it, the PGA Tour has discriminated against him based on his disability. Barron also alleges in his complaint that the Program is an unconscionable contract and therefore is void; that the PGA Tour has breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by applying the TUE provisions and imposing the sanction against him in an arbitrary and capricious manner; that by issuing a press release that was misleading, the PGA Tour defamed him and placed him in a false light; and that the PGA Tour tortiously interfered with his prospective business endorsement opportunities. Barron argues that he qualifies as being “disabled” under the ADA because he has a physical impairment (abnormally low Testosterone) that substantially limits a major life activity (engaging in sexual relations). The Sixth Circuit has not yet found that engaging in sexual activities is “a major life activity.” In addition to sexual relations, Barron also claims that his low testosterone causes fatigue and compromises his immune system. “Since fatigue in and of itself does not constitute an ‘activity,’ suffering from fatigue cannot qualify as a major life activity.” A major bodily function, on the other hand, including functions of the immune system, is considered a major life activity. According to Barron’s complaint, “low testosterone can prevent the body from healing at a normal rate and can further compromise a man’s immune system, placing him at a higher risk of infection and illness,” and Barron “experienced all of these symptoms.” Case Study Analysis Grading Rubric

Criteria	Levels of Achievement
Content	Advanced	Proficient	Developing	Not present
Reflection 15 points	14 to 15 points Deep insights and critical thinking are displayed. Clear application of course concepts is made to personal situations.	13 points Insights and deep thinking are displayed. Application of course concepts is made to personal situations.	1 to 12 points Superficial thinking and insights are displayed. Little application of course concepts is made.	0 points No application to the concepts made.
Content 20 points	18 to 20 points All topics are thoroughly addressed and/or all questions are answered. Includes 2 or more scriptures to support statements. Paper is 5 to 7 pages.	17 points All or most topics are generally, but not comprehensively addressed and all or most questions were answered. Includes 1 scripture to support statements. Paper is 5 to 7 pages.	1 to 16 points Topics and/or questions were not addressed satisfactorily. Includes 1 scripture to support statements. Paper is less than 5 pages.	0 points Topics and/or question not addressed. Does not include scripture to support statements. Paper is less than 5 pages
Structure	Advanced	Proficient	Developing	Not present
Sources 5 points	5 points All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented in the desired format. Sources are listed in a reference page in current APA format.	4 points All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented, but some are not in the desired format. Sources are listed in a reference page in current APA format.	1 to 3 points Sources are not accurately documented or formatted. Sources are listed in reference page but not in current APA format.	0 points Sources are not accurately documented or formatted throughout the assignment. No reference page.
Mechanics 10 points	10 points Less than 2 current APA formatting, grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors are present. Title page is in current APA format.	8 to 9 points 3 to 5 current APA formatting, grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors are present. Title page is in current APA format.	1 to 7 points More than 5 current APA formatting grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors are present. Title page is not included or not in current APA format.	0 points Multiple grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors are present. Title page is not in current APA format.

Page 1 of 2

Page 1 of 2

[meteor_slideshow slideshow="slide3"]

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

[meteor_slideshow slideshow="slide2"]

Use the order calculator below and get ordering with idealtermpapers.com now! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]