Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation

Evaluation of medical education programs aims to improve the interaction of doctors and nurses; therefore, it is essential to consider many factors when estimating it. Globalization and the trend of society towards a conscious life have become the main factors for changes (Bradley et al., 2011). However, there are some types of ethical violations, such as clientelism, contractualism, methodological ism, relativism, and pluralism (Goldie, 2006). In my opinion, in medicine, the first and fourth points are most often encountered, which must be prevented but using the new approach.

Customer focus is the first metric of any organization to be applied wisely. Medicine is a field that every person turns to throughout life, regardless of gender, race, culture, and other characteristics. In this regard, ensuring patient satisfaction requires considering a wide range of nuances associated with personality characteristics. According to Kivistö and Hautala (2020), this requires social work to raise its critical awareness and reflect on the client’s needs in addition to various resources. In other words, moreover to the regulatory policy of medical practice, covering professional skills and knowledge, reassessment requires considering the individual factor. The complexity of the process most often leads to ethical violations when evaluating medical education programs.

The cultural diversity of patients and the society in which they live influences adherence to doctors’ recommendations. McQuaid and Landier’s (2017) study argues that established principles of certain nations, such as African Americans, suggest that some treatment may harm them. It leads to the worst health consequences and negative attitudes towards the methods used by doctors. Returning to the topic of client orientation, it can be argued that the doctor must convey information to the patient in such a way that it has an impact. It means that it is necessary to explain the details in an accessible language and answer all the questions that arise regarding the choice of a treatment method. When evaluating medical education programs, the cultural characteristics of a small population are usually not considered.

Relativism in ethics violation assumes the same weighting factors for the analysis of the collected data. “It does not say that all norms and values should be rejected, although it is based on the idea of absolute rules and principles” (Hayry, 2005, p. 9). There must be a standard that will be a rule of thumb for years to come. It is hard to achieve globally for the above reasons; therefore, research rules are best developed locally (Tangwa, 2004). Each improvement must be tested in its appearance place and then can be put forward for global discussion. It will allow experts practicing in developing countries such as Africa to be heard and consider their opinion when drawing up the world’s ethical principles used in teaching. For example, the Helsinki Declaration of Guidelines in Medicine found two points of view in the use of placebos (Tangwa, 2004). Some argue that this will help researchers to find new ideas and medical solutions. Others see this approach as inhumane and oppressive for people with limited resources. Such controversial issues need to be resolved when evaluating medical education programs.

The only correct approach that would not violate ethical principles is forming a strict standard, complementing the cultural features. At the moment, many general rules cover the main points of medical practice. To avoid ethical violations, the policy of client orientation and relativism should be revised. The research should start towards the target group of a specific region within the country. For example, 39% of California residents are Hispanics, 36% are white, and 15% are from Asia or the Pacific Islands (California’s Population, 2021). In this case, the researcher sees three main categories on which education should be guided to avoid ethical violation.

The data collection process should be based on social research over the past years. For example, asking each patient to leave comments about the service received and possible recommendations for improvement at discharge. Analysis of information is necessary to find commonality and further amendments to the training program. At the same time, relativism should consider the population size of a particular race and emphasize its more enormous number. Ethical violations in the evaluation of educational programs can be excluded by applying a comprehensive research approach.

Medical services are an integral part of every person’s life; therefore, their quality must be acceptable for everyone. A constantly changing environment and globalization make research into ethical violations in medicine more complex. It is essential to timely reassess the region’s current situation to modernize education programs; therefore, it is worth starting with the most significant factors. A customer-centric policy keeps the need to consider the characteristics of the population using the services provided. It is a rather complex process because of cultural and racial diversity. To resolve the issue, it is necessary to highlight the ethnic characteristics of the region and understand their needs. Furthermore, it is worth considering the weighting factors of the number of subjects for more accurate results. If the new interaction plan is successful, the ethical principle can be extended to the world level. Eradicating ethical violations in medicine will support democracy, equity, and patient satisfaction.


Bradley, W. G., Golding, S. G., Herold, C. J., Hricak, H., Krestin, G. P., Lewin, J. S., Miller, J. C., Ringertz, H. G., & Thrall, J. H. (2011). Globalization of P4 medicine: Predictive, personalized, preemptive, and participatory — Summary of the proceedings of the eighth international symposium of the international society for strategic studies in radiology, august 27–29, 2009. Radiology, 258(2), 571–582. Web.

California’s population. (2021). Public Policy Institute of California. Web.

Goldie, J. (2006). AMEE education guide no. 29: Evaluating educational programmes. Medical Teacher, 28(3), 210–224. Web.

Hayry, M. (2005). A defense of ethical relativism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14(01), 7–12. Web.

Hyin, I. (2008). Clinical cultural competence and the threat of ethical relativism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 17(02). Web.

Kivistö, M., & Hautala, S. (2020). Structuration processes of client-oriented and system-oriented social work practice: The view point of client documentation. Nordic Social Work Research, 1–14. Web.

McQuaid, E. L., & Landier, W. (2017). Cultural issues in medication adherence: Disparities and directions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(2), 200–206. Web.

Tangwa, G. B. (2004). Between universalism and relativism: A conceptual exploration of problems in formulating and applying international biomedical ethical guidelines. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 63–67. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style


NursingBird. (2022, December 11). Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation. Retrieved from


NursingBird. (2022, December 11). Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation.

Work Cited

"Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation." NursingBird, 11 Dec. 2022,


NursingBird. (2022) 'Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation'. 11 December.


NursingBird. 2022. "Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation." December 11, 2022.

1. NursingBird. "Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation." December 11, 2022.


NursingBird. "Ethical Violations in Medical Education Programs Evaluation." December 11, 2022.