CASE ANALYSIS – THE KOKO PIMENTEL DILEMMA

Use the 7-step moral reasoning model to solve the following case:

Koko Pimentel, a namesake of a Philippine senator, is a healthcare worker attending to

the call of duty in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. He is the breadwinner of his family. He
takes care of his aged parents and he has young children.

Every health care worker counts during these times and there have been instances where
entire hospitals have been forced to shut down because of presumed exposure or suspected status
of one health care worker. In such an all hands-on deck scenario, to try to push oneself to the
limits of endurance, neglecting physical symptoms and needs, is par for the course. In the
hospital where Koko is working, there is limited availability of personal protective equipment
(PPE) and inequitable distribution of available equipment like ventilators.

How should he balance his ethical duty to care for his patient against genuine concerns of
contacting COVID-19 and spreading it to his family? If he thinks he has some respiratory
symptoms and he thinks he may have been exposed, should he open up about his symptoms and
stay at home, risking social and workplace discrimination, or continue to go about his work as
usual, risking his colleagues’ health, until his test comes positive?

GUIDELINES FOR THE CASE ANALYSIS

FORMAT
SURNAME, Given Name MI (Person 1) ETHICS ; Class Time; Class Days
Course, Year, and Section Date Submitted

AN ANALYSIS OF THE KOKO PIMENTAL DILEMMA

I. FACTS
Koko is a healthcare worker attending to the call of commitment amid the COVID-19
pandemic. He Is also a breadwinner who takes care of his aged parents and young children. He
performs in a hospital where there is a suspected case of COVID-19 virus to a one health
worker. The hospital where Koko works has limited availability of personal protective
equipment (PPE) and inequitable allocation of available equipment like ventilators. Koko is
facing a dilemma on how he could execute his professional obligation while maintaining his
family's safety from acquiring the virus on him. He is indecisive on what to do: either to open
up about his symptoms and stay at home, jeopardizing social and workplace small-mindedness,
or to continue to fulfill his obligation in the consequences of spreading the virus to his
colleagues and other patients.

II. ETHICAL ISSUES

The dilemma in this case of Mr. Pimentel was focused on about to open up about his
symptoms risking social and workplace discrimination or ignoring his symptoms risking his
colleague's and patients’ health.

III. PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE A BEARING ON THE CASE

The case is about a conflict of rights of Mr. Pimentel against the rights of his
colleagues. Two principles are thus prevailing. First, a person who rendered himself in an
obligation that can cause his life has the right to protect himself against social and workplace
By choosing to keep silent about his symptoms, Mr. Pimentel would likely be safe against all
discrimination against him that would cause a major impact on his mental health. On the other
hand, his colleagues have the full right to know the status of Mr. Pimentel so that they could
protect themself against COVID-19. Just like Mr. Pimentel, these health workers sacrifice
themself for the principle of fulfilling their obligation even in this trying time. Thus, to protect
oneself is necessary

IV. ALTERNATIVES
The first alternative is to ignore his symptoms and continue to work. The second is to
tell honestly about his symptoms and decide to quarantine himself.

V. COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE PRINCIPLES

In alternative one, Mr. Pimentel will continue to his obligation leaving his colleagues
vulnerable to contracting the virus. As health who knows how the virus and the ethics of
medicine, this alternative will cause Mr. Pimentel to be a conscience in putting the risk the
health of his many colleagues. On the other hand, in the second alternative, Mr. talks honestly
about his symptoms leaving himself to suffer from discrimination in the community. As a
health worker who sacrifices his life during the time pandemic, Mr. Pimentel will surely suffer
discrimination that can cause a psychological problem on his part. Further to that, his
symptoms will not just solely result in social and workplace discrimination on Mr. Pimentel's
part, but also will extend to his family.

VI. ASSESSMENT OF CONSEQUENCES

The alternative one of ignoring his symptoms and continue to work
 The colleagues would be vulnerable to contracting the virus. Considering the limited
availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and inequitable distribution of
available equipment like ventilators would risk their lives. 
The alternative two to tell his symptoms has likely the following consequence: 
 Mr. Pimentel's status would be out in open, leaving the community would draw
discrimination about his health causing him significant psychological harm from the
community. 

VII. DECISION
At all costs, the health worker will guarantee to prioritize saving lives. Mr. Pimentel is
a health worker who knows his professional ethics and knows much more about how the virus
would work. Further to that, he knows much of the feelings of his colleagues as health
workers. Thus, in this situation, Mr. Pimentel will confess his symptoms and will be
quarantined. By choosing to ignore his symptoms, Mr. Pimentel will be safe from
psychological problems caused by social and workplace discrimination. However, he will not
still be safe from his conscience for putting risk to his colleagues. Further to that, his
colleagues will understand his situation as a health worker being vulnerable to the virus. Thus
his discrimination will be received is less than expected. Furthermore, there is an existing law
against discrimination against the health worker that will protect Mr. Pimentel. An action to
disregard his symptoms will not just put his colleague's lives in danger, he will also be
accountable to the law.