As a form of opening to my case study evaluation, I will identify the main problem for this

scenario which is balancing both sides based on the possible impact of the chosen action that will
be made by the doctor. Moreover, in relation to this main problem, the doctor doesn’t have the
complete story beyond the sponge that was left inside the stomach of the patient which can be
classified also as an ongoing concern. So, certain precautionary measures regarding the
background of the “sponge issue” should be considered before arriving at the final decision.
First, let’s tackle all the information that are available and probable events that took place
in the story. First, the patient suffered from stomach pain, so it can be said that the doctor
proposed any potential causes for that sore feeling. Then, to finally know the exact origin of the
patient’s discomfort, the doctor decided to take an internal study on the patient, and he found
out that there was a sponge that was left inside the tummy of the patient from his last operation
that was conducted by the friend of the doctor. Therefore, definite ways can be contemplated
considering the significant details of the story. One of these is directly or immediately informing
the patient of the true anecdote that triggered his stomach pain. But in doing so, it can greatly
affect the present and future life of the doctor that is responsible for the incident. In addition, it
can also collide with the relationship of the two doctors. Accordingly, let’s move on to the next
hypothetical way which is stating a lie to the primary root of the illness. With this, it can save the
license and future life of the doctor’s friend, but we all know that it cannot be treated as a fair
approach. The patient didn’t have the chance to receive his right of knowing all the appropriate
information that is concordant with facts about his operation. Also, this is a violation of the
doctor’s pledge which is known as “The Hippocratic Oath,” because one of the contents of that
oath is “I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment.”, so it is quite immoral to the
side of the doctor to lie to this patient in all discourse. We can’t say that it is acceptable because
the patient didn’t die and the sponge was removed instantly, taking everything in mind that prior
to the final stitching or ending the operation, the doctors and nurses that are in charge of the
operation should have a counting and conclusive checking of the equipment that were used in
the said operation.
In connection to the prima facie duties under Kant’s ethical theory, fidelity and reparation
are listed among the seven duties wherein fidelity refers to the side of the doctor who saw and
removed the sponge because he is the one who can disseminate the accurate information to the
patient. Furthermore, reparation considerably relates to the mistake committed by the doctor
who supervised the operation that caused the sponge to remain inside the patient’s stomach. He
is responsible for acknowledging his fault and having an act of obligation by paying the second
operation of the patient and giving any form of good deeds like foods and medicines which is
stated in the last part of the story. Thus, in my perception, inside any situation, the concept of
being treated fairly and justly is critical to both truth and justice. When individuals argue about
what they feel should be provided, or when choices regarding how advantages and costs should
be divided among a group of people must be made, problems of moral rightness unavoidably
emerge. So, it is just right for the doctor to talk to his friend and advising him to admit his
wrongdoing in order to have an equitable and justice-based outcome for both parties.