Assignment 2

The Case of the Lost Chapel

*The term O Team is used to refer to the administrators of the hospital which includes the
CEO, CIO, COO, CFO etc.

Details of Case

This issue of the case is whether or not it was ethical for the O
Team (together with the approval of the Board of Trustees) to
demolish the 115-year-old chapel since it did not appear to be
financially beneficial. To replace the chapel, the O Team
suggested the construction of a much needed parking facility
which they said would also generate income for the hospital.
The hospital was previously not centred around profit
generation until it was merged with a larger hospital chain,
who appeared to only retain the name because of the respect
the community had for the institution and what it stood for.
The company eventually decided to proceed with the
demolition and construction of the parking facility, in the
midst of opposition from the community. This turned out to be
an unwise financial decision as the respect once held for the
institutions name was no longer associated with the hospital
under the new management. This lead to many physicians and
patients seeking medical care elsewhere resulting in
significant revenue reduction.

Obligations

Information that was not given in the case that would be

relevant was whether or not the O Team explored what the
effect would be had they demolished the chapel. After
learning of the communitys opinion on the demolition it is not
known whether they explored what the possible effect might
be. It was also not stated if the Board of Trustees was made
aware of the concerns of the community, or if they were, the
seriousness of these concerns.
Relevant Criteria
O Teams Obligations
Communitys Obligations
Professional Obligations
Professional Obligations
The O Team has the
The community had
obligation to ensure
the obligation to the
that the hospital was
hospital and by
managed and run in a
extension the O Team
sustainable way so
to raise issues they
that maximum benefit
believed that may be
would be realized
harmful or
from the resources
counterproductive to
The O team was also
the hospital.
obligated to the
shareholders of the
hospital to ensure that
the hospital was being
run in a way to
generate revenue.
The O team was
obligated to address
the interests of the
community as well, to
ensure that their needs
and desires were being

A newly acquired hospital by a large, for-profit hospital chain was under review by the team
charged with the responsibility of managing the hospital. This team included the CEO, CIO,
COO and CFO, and referred to as the O team. The teams task was to assess all the assets and
practices of the hospital and suggest changes that would ensure the hospital was being run in a
financially responsible and profitable way. On review, the O Team found that the hospitals
chapel, which was an integral part of the hospitals development over 100 years previously, was
costing the company more money than it was creating, and was therefore not a financially wise
service and structure to maintain. They proposed, instead, that the chapel be demolished and a
much needed parking facility be constructed. This proposition was met with strong opposition
from the community served by the hospital, who expressed various reasons for their disapproval
of the project. Still, the O Team proceeded with the demolition. The main ethical issue that arose
then was whether or not it was ethical for the O Team to demolish the chapel and replace it with
a parking facility. In this essay, I aim to show that the decision to demolish the chapel taken by
the O Team was unethical and should therefore, have not been done.
The first argument in support of my stance, which aligns with that of the community, is that the
action to destroy the chapel violates the desires of the main customers of the hospital. A
hospital functions to serve its patients first and foremost, to promote health and wellbeing.
Health and wellbeing goes beyond the usual understanding of the term which limits it to just
medical care. Emotional care also has to be administered concurrently with the physical
medical care. The chapel formed part of the history of many members of the community and its
destruction may be seen by many as being a total disregard for their feelings and heritage. The
decision to demolish was undertaken without any consultation from the community. After the
community expressed their disagreement on finding out, there was still no change in the stance
of the Team. This disregard violates the Kantian theory which looks at actions with respect to the
individuals involved and their goals rather than just ones own. Kant argued that if the action
does not reflect that of the other persons involved and just ones own, then that action is
unethical and should not be performed. Therefore, the demolition should not have taken place.
The second argument supporting the view that the demolition was unethical was that there was
no respect for persons being practiced. The principle of respect for persons states that all
should be considered with sympathetically and actions involving persons should not be for ones

own benefit, at the expense of another. Looking at the information presented in the case, it is
clear to see that the O team did not demonstrate this respect for persons in their handling of the
situation. After learning of the desires of the community, there was no change and the team stated
that it was a done deal. This clearly displayed that their actions were seen as superior to the
concerns of the community. Relating to this principle is the ideal of fairness, which is also not
demonstrated by the O teams decision to please the shareholders rather than seek an action that
would benefit all. By these principles, it can therefore be concluded that the decision to demolish
the chapel was unethical.
In the O Teams defence, their motive for the demolition was strictly financial, which in itself
may not be a bad thing. Although doing things just for the purpose of generating revenue may
seem repulsive with reference to a hospital, the need for revenue generation is obviously there.
Hospitals, like any other company, need money to sustain its operations. Considering the high
price of healthcare services today, almost around the world, the only way to maintain a hospital
at a level of excellence is by employing measures that will be most financially beneficial. By
doing this, hospitals can invest in the ever advancing technologies that would not otherwise be
affordable if good financial sense was not practiced. This approach is what was employed by the
O team in their decision to demolish the chapel and construct the parking facility. This action is
supported by the utilitarian theory which seeks the action that would produce the best outcome.
Their analysis of the situation was however one-sided. As mentioned previously, the primary
purpose of a hospital was to serve those in need. If a hospital was not doing so, these patients
would seek medical care elsewhere where they feel that their needs are being addressed. Since
the community expressed their desire for the chapel to remain, actions contrary to that would
severely affect the trust and respect held for the institution and would result in the opposite effect
being produced; less revenue would be generated due to loss of patients. Therefore, this action is
not supported by the utilitarian theory since there is no greater revenue generation and no overall
benefit for any party involved.
Another argument supporting the O teams position was that action to demolish the chapel was
going to be for the benefit of more people. Since the chapel was not being utilized extensively,
the space it occupied seemed to be wasted and could better be converted into something else that
would benefit more people in the community than just those who use the chapel. The suggestion

to build a parking facility in that place also seemed to meet the needs of more people since there
was a lack of adequate parking at the hospital. Again, utilizing the utilitarian theory, the
demolition of the chapel and construction of the parking facility benefited more people. This
view however ignored one of the most fundamental ethical principles respect for persons. As
mentioned previously, this principle states that every individual deserves sympathetic
consideration and should therefore be afforded treatment as such. The O Team chose to do what
they believed was the best decision with the most positive outcome, rather than carefully
considering, with empathy, the concerns of the community. This action violated that principle
and therefore could not be employed while remaining ethically sound.
In conclusion, looking at the arguments both for and against, it is clear to see that the decision to
demolish the chapel was an unethical one. By both the Kantian and utilitarian theories, the
demolition could not be supported. Further, the basic principle of respect for persons also brings
the actions of the O team into question since they showed a blatant disregard for the concerns of
the community. Looking at the data, and applying the ethical principles and theories, there
should be no doubt as to what the decision should have been.