Capitalism vs. Ethics

[sonny_1080]

Hypothetical scenario:

You run a referral program for doctors that cure cancer. There's a coalition that exists to separate the "good" doctors from the "bad" doctors - but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of great doctors not affiliated with this coalition.

At the same time, your reputation as a referral service is on the line.

You see the dilemma?

So the problem arises when the other industry "professionals" (possibly your competition) shame your "unethical referral program" because you don't vet the doctors you send people to... what do you do?

A) Only work with doctors in this coalition - violates Control commandment handing control to the coalition, severely limits provider network thus limiting customer pool and heavily decreases revenue, but keeps people from labeling you as unethical.

B) Create your own vetting process - which can never be fully accurate because you don't know what people don't tell you, adds to the workload making it more time-consuming to onboard new providers, and still might be considered unethical because your vetting process is not as thorough as the coalitions

C) Keep the attitude of "whoever pays gets referrals and the vetting is left to the patient to make their own decision." - risking poor PR which can potentially put you out of business in the long run.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[S.Y.]

Hypothetical scenario:

You run a referral program for doctors that cure cancer. There's a coalition that exists to separate the "good" doctors from the "bad" doctors - but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of great doctors not affiliated with this coalition.

At the same time, your reputation as a referral service is on the line.

You see the dilemma?

So the problem arises when the other industry "professionals" (possibly your competition) shame your "unethical referral program" because you don't vet the doctors you send people to... what do you do?

A) Only work with doctors in this coalition - violates Control commandment handing control to the coalition, severely limits provider network thus limiting customer pool and heavily decreases revenue, but keeps people from labeling you as unethical.

B) Create your own vetting process - which can never be fully accurate because you don't know what people don't tell you, adds to the workload making it more time-consuming to onboard new providers, and still might be considered unethical because your vetting process is not as thorough as the coalitions

C) Keep the attitude of "whoever pays gets referrals and the vetting is left to the patient to make their own decision." - risking poor PR which can potentially put you out of business in the long run.

D) Be upfront with the patients being referred. Let them know that you are not vetting the docs.
And perhaps provide a way for them to make their own educated guess?

The ethics here are not on whether or not you are vetting. I see it more on how clear is it that you are not vetting. In your scenario, it sounds fairly important for people to know.

If you are clear on that aspect, there is no basis to call you unethical.

 

[sonny_1080]

You're not the first business to have to solve this type of problem. Any time you have a business that plays the middleman between consumer and provider, you have this issue.

Think eBay. Or Amazon. Or Craigslist. Or Yelp. Or a million other companies...

Think about what some of them do...

Believe me I have.

So I created a review website. The problem is monetizing the reviews, hence the lead gen model.

The difference here is dealing with cancer, unlike the other companies you mentioned.

 

[Speed112]

Believe me I have.

So I created a review website. The problem is monetizing the reviews, hence the lead gen model.

The difference here is dealing with cancer, unlike the other companies you mentioned.

Why is dealing with cancer any different from dealing with starvation or transportation or communication?

Is Amazon unethical because they charge people for buying baby formula? If the baby doesn't eat, it dies. If the formula is bad quality, it may also die. There are better products than others, but not all of them are being sold on Amazon. Is Amazon unethical for only providing the option to buy their curated list of baby formula products?

Why is healthcare treated differently from food? Or automobiles?

In many places, if you don't have a car, you can't commute to your job, which means you're not employable, which means you can't earn your bread and you die. Is it unethical for a Ford dealership to only sell Ford cars? Should they be compelled to advertise Volvos because they're better and more efficient and safer than Fords? People who commute are in a car a lot, so by selling them a worse car, you increase their chance of dying in a car accident. You're contributing to lowering their lifespan! How dare you!

This entire debate is silly to me.

You are offering people a service. They know what they're getting... your opinion on what the best doctor is for them. They might disagree, and if they do they can very well go to someone else for recommendations. What's the harm?

You're not the sole provider of doctor advertising.

Now, if you were the government, or some collective of "professionals" that gives a special title or license to the people they deem suitable to perform an activity, and then you outlaw everyone else who doesn't get that special title from you from performing said activity... and then you even have the hubris to call people who try to compete with your monopoly as "unethical" because how dare they not respect your authority ... well, from where I'm standing, that is what's really unethical.

So if the problem is monetizing the reviews... Why not make it a subscription?

Or use a credit system.

Or just worry less and do match-making commissions like you initially wanted.

You have a platform, people who sign up on the platform are eligible to match up with each other. If someone is salty that they're not included on your platform, then all they have to do is agree to your terms and sign up. What's the big deal?

Is Tinder unethical because they don't include every attractive celebrity as a potential match?

You shouldn't be expected to know every doctor in the world and have an infallible godlike recommendation system. You should be expected to know the doctors in your roster that have voluntarily signed up for your service.

And people who appreciate your curation and the convenience of your recommendations will use your system. People who don't appreciate them will go on with their lives as they've done so far. And your competitors who are threatened by your service will find every which way to discredit you and harm your business, whether by calling you "unethical" or whatever else.

So what?

The reason the other people might call you unethical is not because what you're doing is actually unethical. It's because they have a vested interest in cornering the market and deciding who is virtuous enough to be allowed to practice whatever it may be.

In NY you have to be vetted by a group of "professionals" to drive a taxi lmao. Driving is pretty dangerous. A bad driver could kill you, just like a bad doctor. So clearly it must be sensible to restrict driving service to only those deemed worthy enough to be affiliated with whatever monopolistic coalition. And anyone going against that must surely be unethical.

Is Uber unethical for disrupting the taxi industry and letting regular ol' people drive others around? Uber vets them. Curates them. Gives them a rating and stuff. You've got everything there... but how many Uber drivers have a Taxi Medallion?

I see no distinction between your situation and that.

Regardless. Do you want to help people?

Then go and do that. There's nothing evil about charging people money for things. And the things being important to their well-being don't change that fact. If that were the case insulin would be free, vaccines would be free, food would be free, houses would be free, clothes would be free, everything would be free...

And by free I don't mean subsidized and funded through involuntary taxation. I mean people giving them out from the goodness of their heart because charging for them is unethical.

But if they were free, there would sure as hell be less of them out on the market. And less advanced, too.

Nothing is free to produce. They cost time and money and opportunity...

Why would consuming them be free?

Just be transparent and don't defraud people and you're perfectly within ethical boundaries. You're not harming people by providing information, if the information is truthful. Charging for it is fine, if the transaction is voluntary and you deliver on your promise/their expectations.

The information being the directions to the Fountain of Youth doesn't change that fact. If you know the directions to both the Fountain of Youth and the Fountain of Immortality, and you choose to sell the former for $1000000, while keeping the latter exclusively for yourself and your closest peers... that's perfectly ethical. Because you're not costing anyone anything. You're not harming anyone. People are free the find the fountains on their own.

Now, this might be slightly immoral, depending on who you ask. But that's a subjective matter. Figure it out for yourself.

You could argue that, by choosing to not maximize the good you can do in the world by releasing the information, you are withholding that improvement. So the difference between what you could have done and what you've actually done (eternal youth for everyone vs eternal youth for some) is the amount of negative good (or harm) you've allowed to continue existing.

This is silly, though, because if this were true, we would all be evil monsters of sloth. How dare we relish in the fruits of our labors when we could be maximizing the good in the world? How dare we charge for anything? How dare we waste our time with leisure when there's some additional utility to min/max?

Come on.

The real comparison here is between 1. Your service not existing and 2. Your service existing with whatever monetization scheme you decide. If 2 is better than 1, then you're doing good stuff. Everything else is just minutiae.

So choose the path your audience wants. Who are you servicing? The doctors or the patients? Have them pay for your service. Understand why it's valuable. Then defend it with all your might when the nay-sayers come along and try to drag you down because you're doing something better than them.

Don't be afraid of helping people. It's really sad.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Johnny boy]

Did you know coca cola sells over 3500 different beverages?

If you desire one thing, you can have the beverage that fits that. If you desire another thing, you can have the beverage that fits that instead.

Coca cola always wins.

You are selling one drink. Sell 3 of them.

The answer to your question isn't A, B, or C.

It's 'yes'.

 

[Kak]

Capitalism vs Ethics?

This suggests that they are at odds with one another.

The reality is you either screw people or you don’t. A capitalist earns money at no one’s EXPENSE. A capitalist doesn’t exploit.

The right word for someone who exploits, or engages in dishonest business is a crook.

So the answer is... Do you want to make money honestly or dishonestly? What is best for YOU long term? Customers paired with quality doctors that did very well for the patients? Or a random referral service that didn’t even need to exist?

I know which one.

Short term scorched earth at the expense of later is not a good business decision and not capitalism.

 

[Kak]

I guess there are two of these threads I responded to at once LOL!

I particularly loved drawing comparisons between "coalitions" and organizations like "Fair Trade," the BBB, Yelp and Debeers.

Libsyn Directory

directory.libsyn.com

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.