Category: Donation

When an organ fails, it is surgically removed from the donor and implanted into the recipient, who is the transplant receiver. The liver, kidney, pancreas, and heart are among the organs that can be donated. This surgical procedure is very complex and is used in cases of extreme illnesses when other treatment methods have failed to help a patient sustain their health. COVID-19 has become a challenge for the global healthcare system, and although organ donation is not directly linked to this condition, some new trends with transplantation have emerged as well. For one, the exposure to COVID-19 of the donors required healthcare professionals to alter how the transplants were selected to ensure no infected tissues. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a shortage of donated organs, especially for individuals with kidney failure who depend on organ transplantation as the only treatment option.

Organ donation and transplantation have been a single treatment method for patients with severe illnesses causing organ failure. Due to the nature of the transplantation procedure, patients requiring it would need to be on a waitlist until an organ with suitable physiological characteristics becomes available (Kute et al., 2022). Hence, some patients who require transplantation could wait for years or never receive their transplant at all. Moreover, in the United States, organ donorship is voluntary, and it is forbidden by law to sell or purchase human organs (Kute et al., 2022). Thus, patients with severe illnesses rely on the citizens who choose to donate their organs for transplantation, as this is the former’s only chance to survive.

Prior to the pandemic, patients already had to be on a waitlist, some for years, to receive the organ transplant they needed. According to research by Merola et al. (2021), fewer organs were donated after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The capacity to properly recover organs and execute transplants has been affected by the possibility of virus transmission from donors to recipients or to and from medical professionals. Transplantation of solid organs is regarded as being absolutely required and vital (Merola et al., 2021). Many patients with stable illnesses and those awaiting scheduled living donor transplants were able to safely postpone surgery until after the pandemic’s incidence peak had passed. However, COVID-19 forced the transplantation centers to change their screening policy to ensure that recipients do not get infected. Each transplant center thoughtfully decides whether to move through with the transplant (Merola et al., 2021). Most of the time, living donor transplantation, particularly liver donation, was postponed, allowing healthy donors to adhere to the advised stay-at-home recommendations (Merola et al., 2021). In any case, the transplantation centers had to alter their donor transplantation policies, and living donors, in many cases, had to quarantine or postpone their procedures due to fears of being infected with COVID-19.

The pandemic developed gradually and affected different areas of the United States with varying severity. Thus, the effect of COVID-19 on the organ donation and transplantation process has not been noticed until fairly recently. Depending on the incidence and prevalence of COVID-19, this disease process had a diverse impact on different regions of the United States at different times. Between February and April 2020, there were more than 25% fewer liver transplants nationwide as a result of significantly reduced organ recovery rates and living donation (Merola et al., 2021). In the event of another wave of COVID-19, a similar halt in transplantation may occur again.

The official statistics of the United States government also support the idea that with the onset of the pandemic, the number of organ transplantation procedures has decreased. According to the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (2021), “A total of 5,725 living donor transplants were performed in 2020, a decrease of 22.6 percent over the record of 7,397 set in 2019” (para. 1). While the pandemic disproportionately reduced the availability of healthcare services in some regions of the nation, deceased donation rates increased across the board.

The pandemic appears to be the main cause of the reduction in the number of organ transplantation cases. Before its onset, the number of transplantation surgeries in the United States had been increasing continuously yearly. Based on the statistics of the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (2021), of the 58 organ procurement groups in the country, 38 had a rise in donations in 2020 compared to those in 2019. A large portion of the increase in deceased donations was made possible by donors who did not meet the usual medical requirements. The age range of dead donors that was most prevalent for the second consecutive year was 50 to 64 (Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, 2021). The 3,726 donations in this category represent an increase of 7.9% from 2019. Donations increased significantly among people who passed away from cardiorespiratory failure as opposed to brain death; there were 3,223 DCD donors in 2019, an increase of 18.6% from the total in 2019 (Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, 2021). All of these factors contributed to the availability of healthy organs available for transplantation to patients in need of them.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a more significant impact on the number of living donor transplants that the clinics carried out. Due to worries about unnecessarily exposing potential live donors and living donor recipients to potential COVID-19 infection, many transplant programs temporarily delayed living donor transplantation in locations that were particularly afflicted by COVID-19 outbreaks. According to Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (2021), 5,725 living donor transplants were completed in total in 2020, which is a 22.6 percent decline from the record-breaking 7,397 transplants carried out in 2019. However, since June 2020, the number of living donor transplants has increased at a rate more akin to pre-pandemic activity. A total of 39,034 transplants from both live and deceased donors were carried out in the United States as a result of the reduction in living donor transplantation. Although it is the second-highest annual amount of transplants overall, the record of 39,719 set in 2019 has been marginally surpassed (Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, 2021). Therefore, as the healthcare system adapts to post-pandemic life, the number of organ transplants is returning to the pre-pandemic values.

Most importantly, it is unclear how this trend will affect donor transplantation in the United States. COVID-19 has changed the resource allocation within the healthcare system. Moreover, it made it necessary for transplantation centers to take more steps of precaution to ensure that donors and recipients are healthy.

Some precautionary measures have already been implemented by the responsible agencies to ensure that organ donation is safe. For example, testing for COVID-19 and donor history are now commonplace components of the donor assessment procedure (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). In a perfect world, there would be no history of SARS-CoV-2 exposure or symptoms that would point to a coronavirus infection, as well as quick access to accurate diagnostics and the required imaging tests. Even with testing, however, there has been some direct coronavirus transmission from asymptomatic individuals (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). Additionally, there are considerable false-negative outcomes with the present tests, and testing techniques are not nationally standardized. Moreover, even while society guidelines do not suggest its use as a regular screening method, access to sensitive imaging is not always easy to come by, such as computed tomography of the chest.

Significant changes were made in reaction to the pandemic in many organ donation facilities. Ahmed et al. (2020) report that measures such as reducing staff presence on-site and switching to telephone methods for donor family correspondence. The contemporary environment has witnessed substantial changes in organ donation, but it is still unclear what these changes will mean in the long run. Further research is necessary to meet unmet demands, prepare for a proportionate virus response, and lessen the collateral damage as a result of these developments during the COVID-19 era. Ahmed et al. (2020) state that they anticipated that the present COVID-19 issue may have had an impact on donor volume, organ yield, and service activity based on prior observations in the surgical literature and the functionality of existing social distancing measures and health policy guidelines. Two crucial questions to examine are how this pandemic has affected organ donation and how long it would take to manage a potentially expanding waiting list.

Since the earlier editions of the recommendations, the requirement for screening potential recipients prior to transplantation. A commonly used method for screening is the RT-PCR test of nasopharyngeal samples, which has been established, with the transplant process being delayed in patients testing positive or with a suggestive clinical picture (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). Despite some reports suggesting a higher sensitivity computer scan compared with RT-PCR testing in patients with symptoms of COVID-19, no firm recommendation was proposed in this regard for recipient evaluation due to logistical issues and the expected low pretest probability among otherwise asymptomatic candidates (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). Therefore, the cause of the decrease in the number of organ donations has not been addressed substantially, which may be a barrier for people who want to become organ donors.

The disparity in deceased donation decline among regions highlights the need to improve deceased donation policies and practices to ensure that organ donation levels continue to increase. The deceased donation is anticipated to be particularly vulnerable during upcoming pandemics. New high-level data collected by Kute et al. (2022) confirm that successful deceased donation programs also produce positive results. Several locations avoided organ donations during the pandemic’s initial phase because of the concern of extended hospital stays and a higher likelihood of complications. Hence, more policy-related work is needed to address the decline in organ donations post-COVID-19.

In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a shortage of donated organs, particularly for kidney failure patients for whom organ transplantation is the only available form of treatment. The cause of this issue is the potential for virus transmission from donors to recipients or to and from medical staff. This issue has impacted the ability to retrieve organs and perform transplants, therefore reducing the number of organ donations that are vital for some patients.

References

Ahmed, O., Brockmeier, D., Lee, K., Chapman, W. C., Doyle, M. B. (2020). Organ donation during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Transplantation, 20, 3081– 3088. Web.

Domínguez-Gil, B., Fernández-Ruiz, M., Hernández, D., Crespo, M., Colmenero, J., Coll, E., & Rubio, J. (2020). Organ donation and transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic: A summary of the Spanish experience.Transplantation, 105(1), 29-36. Web.

Merola, J., Schilsky, M.L. and Mulligan, D.C. (2021), The impact of COVID-19 on organ donation, procurement, and liver transplantation in the United States. Hepatology Communications, 5, 5-11. Web.

Kute, V., Tullius, S., Rane, H., Chauhan, S., Mishra, V., & Meshram, H. (2022). Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on solid organ transplant. Transplantation Proceedings, 15-20. Web.

Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network. (2021). Annual record trend continues for deceased organ donation, deceased donor transplants. Web.

One of modern medicine’s most significant and vital achievements is the ability to transplant organs to patients in critical conditions. This procedure has provided an opportunity for many people to find a second life and the opportunity to spend more time with their loved ones. The main participants in this process are people who become organ donors. Thus, this procedure is critically important and necessary, allowing individuals to prolong life and improve its quality.

Before considering the need for organ donation, it is necessary to understand what is included in this medical action. Research states that “organ donation is a life-saving and life-transforming medical process where organs are removed from a donor and transplanted into someone who is very ill or dying from organ failure” (Organ and tissue donation, n.d., para. 1). There are two ways of donation, essential parts can be taken from either living or dead people. Organ donation can include organs such as the heart, lungs, liver, kidney, pancreas, and small intestines (What can you donate? n.d.). Statistics show that “every day in the United States of America (USA), 21 people die waiting for an organ, and more than 120,048 men, women, and children await life-saving organ transplants” (Dibaba et al., 2020, p. 2). This fact is essential evidence of the need for organ donation to save people’s lives.

In conclusion, organ donation is a vital and life-changing procedure that can help save lives and improve the quality of life for those in need. In the United States and around the world, many patients need new organs, which underscores the importance of this medical procedure. Based on statistical data and medical research, giving organs is a valuable procedure that leads to an improvement in the general welfare of society and an increase in the level of health of the population.

References

Organ and tissue donation. (n.d.). Healthdirect. Web.

Dibaba, F. K., Goro, K. K., Wolide, A. D., Fufa, F. G., Garedow, A. W., Tufa, B. E., & Bobasa, E. M. (2020). Knowledge, attitude and willingness to donate organ among medical students of Jimma University, Jimma Ethiopia: cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 20, 1-7. Web.

What can you donate? (n.d.). Organ donation. Web.

Donation of blood is an excellent way of providing help for those in need and the society in general. It occurs when a person willingly agrees to have blood drawn from them for purposes of transfusion or manufacturing biopharmaceutical medicine. The donation may be of particular components of blood only or of blood itself. Anyone older than 16 years of age and with good health condition may become a donor (Donating Blood par. 1).

The benefits of blood donation do not only accrue to the receiver, but also to the donor. Thus, being ready and willing to donate blood forms an important part of our societal and humanitarian responsibilities.

The prime reason behind voluntary blood donation programs is to build a reserve of usable blood, which can be accessed whenever the need arises. It is not prudent to donate blood only during emergencies. Donation of blood in advance ensures that a continuous supply of blood is readily available for emergencies and other demanding circumstances.

Crisis-driven blood donation may lead to the transmission of diseases if the donated blood must to be used immediately. Additionally, during emergencies, donors may not reveal their true medical history and since there may be no time for the same. Similarly, there may be no time for screening the blood when the life of a patient is at stake.

The donation of blood under non-emergency cases ensures that all types of blood are in the bank. This proactive approach is aimed at saving the lives of individuals with rare blood types. It is quite challenging to seek a donor of a rare blood type during an emergency and the patient may end up dying prematurely if the required type of blood is not in the blood bank.

Furthermore, blood donation promotes cohesion. By donating one’s precious blood with full consciousness that it will run in another person’s veins, one expresses a deep level of love for humankind. It is a life-saving undertaking made by compassionate people and deserves to be emulated. One blood donation may be able to help up to three different patients in several ways (Why is it important for me to give blood? par. 3)

Another benefit of blood donation is that during the process, donors undergo a variety of tests, which serve the purpose of ensuring that the donated blood is safe. These tests also aid donors to know their health status, the donor’s blood pressure, temperature, hemoglobin level will be checked before the donation (Why Donate Blood? par. 4). Further, when blood is in the bank, it is possible to wait long enough to determine if there were any pre-mature viruses in the blood at the time of donation. If it turns out that any of the donors has a condition that they were not aware of, they can be informed and placed on medication early enough.

Moreover, research has shown that the donation of blood refreshes the donor. People do not remain blood deficient when they donate. Rather, their systems are replenished with new and fresh blood in no time. In addition, evidence shows that blood donation programs have helped to curtail Malaria, HIV/AIDS, Syphilis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, as well as other life-threatening illnesses (Heath Benefits of Donating Blood, par. 8). Due to the research of blood the modern medicine is able to cure diseases that used to be deemed lethal some time ago, so the demand for blood increases constantly (Why is it important for me to give blood? par. 7).

In conclusion, it is evident that blood donation is important in many ways. Unfortunately, the number of blood recipients is much larger than the number of donors. Consequently, more campaigns and donor-awareness programs are necessary to ensure a constant supply of usable blood in banks. Instead of waiting for disaster to strike and then scramble to donate blood that may sometimes be used without proper screening, it is prudent to make a proactive commitment to donate blood voluntarily on a regular basis. This would help people to stay healthy while simultaneously saving the lives of others.

Works Cited

Donating Blood. CPBB. Web.

Heath Benefits of Donating Blood. OneBlood. Web.

Why Donate Blood. American Red Cross. 2015. Web.

Why is it important for me to give blood? Donarsang. Web.

Introduction

Blood donation is a vital part of medical aid. Although there are artificial substitutes for blood, they will hardly ever be as effective as natural blood in cases when the blood transfusion is needed. In contrast to the blood, they lack plenty of natural substances, which are crucial for metabolism.

Main Body

Blood donation is a voluntary act aimed at the organization and supply of blood for medical and scientific purposes. The donors are the individuals who donate their blood and its integral parts. The blood donated by the volunteers is often divided into its components because some patients need only plasma, red cells, or some other components. Usually, the donation takes about 8-10 minutes but certain types can take up to two hours (Why donate blood? 2014).

It goes without saying that blood donation is an important part of medicine as almost every third individual on the planet needs the transfusion of blood once in his or her life. The rare blood groups represent especially bright evidence of the importance of voluntary blood donation. Sometimes, the relatives or friends become the donors for the patient. However, if the person who needs the transfusion has the rare blood group and Rhesus factor and none of the relatives has the same, the doctors use the blood donated and stored by the volunteers. Thus, voluntary blood donation can save the lives of people. The patients with leucosis need the transfusion every day and they will die without the supply of the donated blood.

Conclusion

There are also benefits from donating blood for donors themselves as it reduces the risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular diseases. Besides, it stimulates the circulation of blood and makes the skin and hair healthier.

References

Why donate blood? (2014). Web.

In general, in his article entitled “The consequences of excessive unrequested donations: the case of Hurricane Andrew”, Neal tries to demonstrate how a great number of unneeded donations to regions where a disaster has just happened decelerate the process of delivering the resources that those areas really need. Particularly, he takes Hurricane Andrew that had a devastating effect on Florida in 1992 as an example. He also provides a discussion about how to allocate resources in case of natural disasters more efficiently.

In the introduction, the author provides an overview of the points he is going to cover. Thus, first of all, he describes various donating processes that happened earlier after other disasters. Second, he particularly describes Hurricane Andrew and its consequences. The next point he discusses is about the problems that unnecessary donations in the form of clothes and similar things caused (Neal, 1994). Lastly, he focuses on the provision of unneeded supplies in the form of food.

In the first section where Neal describes the process of donation, he provides examples of other natural disasters that have happened in the USA since the 1950s. He emphasizes that in all of them, people committed the same mistakes. Thus, he traces the pattern of delivering unrequested donations since 1952 after a hurricane in Arkansas. As a result, more than half of the provided goods were not used by the victims and had to be destroyed. Additionally, the author mentions two main problems that unneeded in-kind donations usually create. The first problem is that officials spend much time sorting, distributing, and destroying these unnecessary donations. The second problem is that these donations cause logistical issues, which create an impediment in delivering needed items.

In the second section, Neal describes methods that were used in obtaining the data regarding the excessive donations after Hurricane Andrew. In the next section, he focuses on Hurricane Andrew and the problem with unnecessary in-kind donations following it. First of all, he discusses the severity of the storm. Thus, Hurricane Andrew was identified as a Category four storm with winds blowing more than 150 miles per hour. As a result, almost 200,000 houses were damaged, 40 people died, hundreds were injured, and approximately 250,000 people became homeless. It was estimated that the overall expenses of the hurricane would be more than $15 billion (Neal, 1994).

Further on, Neal discusses the problem of excessive donations provided after the hurricane. Reportedly, the response in the form of donations was quick, which is good, but the kinds of items donated and their quantity created many problems. In terms of clothes, too much time was spent on their inspecting, cleaning, and sorting. Additionally, these procedures required other resources such as electricity and water. Moreover, most of the clothes were not even used and had to be destroyed. Regarding the excessive food donations, the author highlights the problems that they caused. Namely, after the issues with perishable food in previous disasters, people realized that the best option was to send canned food. As a result, there were truckloads of canned food that were not needed.

In the final section, Neal analyzes the consequences that excessive donations bring. The most important problem is transportation, as the delivery of unrequested goods hinders that of the essential resources (Neal, 1994). Another major problem is storage, as all these unneeded goods must be kept somewhere. Finally, it takes extra time to process these donations.

Thus, this article is important because it provides evidence concerning the fact that the abundance of unneeded donations after disasters causes many problems. This information can be used to change the way of making donations in case of disasters, particularly, making them more efficient.

• Question 1: What donations apart from money in your opinion are the most appropriate after a disaster?
• Question 2: Does the type of needed resources depend on the kind of disaster? How?

Reference

Neal, D. M. (1994). The consequences of excessive unrequested donations: The case of Hurricane Andrew. Disaster Management, 6(1), 23-28.

Introduction: The Challenges of Accountability in Public Organisation

Preventing the instances of fraud within an organisation or a specific community is extremely hard, since the phenomenon and mechanics of accountability, which is being pushed as the key to succeeding in inspiring people for being responsible, have not been studied yet to understand the issues that may emerge once the small universe of interpersonal trust and the sphere of organisation governance collide.

No matter how complicated and well thought out the system of organisation management might be and how verified the human resources might be, the instances of fraud will happen, which gives another reason to reconsider the strategies used for securing the organisation and its resources.

However, once fraud occurs within a community, it begs a question whether an organisation lacks efficient management, or the company leader has put his or her trust into a wrong person.

Definition of accountability: embracing the associated problems

Though accountability might seem quite a simple concept to define, in fact, its essence is very hard to nail down, mainly because accountability is often confused with responsibility (Accountability map n. d., p. 4), the latter being a major part of the phenomenon in question.

There are sources that consider accountability restricted to an obligation to give account of an organisation’s fiscal policies: “Another way we encounter public accountability is as conceptual architects of political institutions” (Dowdle 2006, p. 12); other sources assume that accountability also involves various social responsibilities, defining it as “an issue which affects all levels of government and public administration in democratic societies” (Nosworthy 1999, p. 24), which makes the definition quite vague, seeing how social responsibilities are not as easy to list as the financial ones.

At present, the definitions provided by Chai (“public accountability is a major determinant of public service performance” (Chai 2009, p. 59)) and Khan (“Public accountability is the hallmark of modern democratic governance” (Khan 2008, p. 188) seem the most comprehensive.

Forms of accountability related to the case in question

Due to the lack of clarity in nailing down the nature and the very phenomenon of accountability, there is also little agreement concerning the forms that accountability may take.

There are schools that consider accountability as a wholesome phenomenon that cannot be split into subcategories (i.e., either there is accountability in the community, or there is not), as Moreno does (Mainwaring & Welna 2003, p. 20); others split accountability into two major fields, i. e, politics and everyday issues related accountability (Dowdle 2006, p. 54); some develop a complex system of subcategories into which public accountability can be split (Bovens 2007, p. 104).

Since at present, accountability can be categorised into different subtypes in accordance with various parameters (Topic four: political, Ethical and organisational accountability n. d., p. 255), it will be reasonable to list each of them, giving more detailed descriptions for the ones that are going to be used in the given research.

Conflicts of interest, gifts and benefits

While it must be admitted that the case in point is not as much about the conflict of interests as it is about the violation of social morals and regulations, it is important to keep in mind that the hesitation of the Museum’s CEO regarding the punishment for the crime.

Since the thief belongs to the community, the CEO clearly faces a conflict between the need to punish the thief and to provide the latter with an opportunity for redemption for the sake of the community.

Use of public resources

The given issue is especially important for the case study in question, since unfair use of charity money is going to be discussed.

Record keeping and use of information

It can be assumed that, with a better record-keeping policy regarding the staff, the Museum CEO and staff could have avoided the given issue.

Fraudulent and corrupt behavior

Since theft is classified as a type of corrupt behaviour, the given aspect is also going to be considered.

Communication and official information

While making a direct link between the case of theft analysed in the given paper and the problem of communication is quite a stretch, it can still be assumed that establishing a reliable governance structure, which has clearly failed in the given case, requires that specific information should be available to the organisation members.

Personal behavior

The last, but definitely not the least, the aspect of morals and behaviour must be touched upon, seeing how the charity money, not the one that belonged to the organisation, was stolen.

Thesis statement

Even though the given case is a graphic example of what happens when the rust in a particular person or a member of an organisation has been misplaced, it can be assumed that, apart from a personal factor, the given incident took place mostly due to the imperfections in the strategy applied to check the governance structure being in place, which gives another reason to reconsider the existing system of the Museum management; otherwise, similar instances are most likely to occur in the nearest future.

The Case and Its Analysis: the Many Faces of Accountability

The case describing the instance of fraud and the abuse of power can, in fact, be approached from several sides, depending on the aspect of accountability that the case in question is being considered from.

As it has been stressed, the basic dilemma in the given situation can be related to the choice between the legally correct and morally justified decisions (Graycar & Sidebottom 2012, p. 384).

However, by casting the given dilemma aside, one will be able to reveal more hidden innuendoes in the given problem.

Discussing the back story: case summary

The case of theft that is being analysed in the given paper can be summarised in several sentences; however, it is comparatively hard to cope with, seeing how it incorporates several viewpoints regarding the theft, i.e., the one of the existing Australian legislation, the one concerning the fall in the moral standards of the community, and the necessity to reintroduce better standards to the members of the organisation in order to avoid the further instances of the same kind.

According to the details of the case, $200 of donation money was stolen from the Western Australian Museum.

After a short investigation, the senior financial manager was suspected, which led to his resignation and tarnished reputation.

As soon as the instances of theft reoccurred, investigation was conducted, revealing two people, including the SFM, being in charge of the fraud. The fact that the SFM was the thief left the entire staff and the CEO completely shocked.

List of dilemmas to be faced: a tough call

As it has been stressed above, the primary dilemma of the given case concerns the choice that the Western Australian Museum CEO have to make in defining the priority of the further course of actions and the evaluation of the problem of fraud, i.e., the choice between the reinforcement of moral values and the reconsideration of the existing rules and regulations as for the governance structure of the Museum.

The given decision is by far more complicated than it might seem from the position of a legal person, since it questions the necessity to reinforce that the organisation’s moral values and ethical principles.

Since each of the choices takes considerable amount of time to be corrected, it is crucial to choose wisely.

Analysis of the current concerns: what has been overlooked

Dilemma #1: managerial responsibility vs. communication limitations

Communication issues are an integral part of the organisation mechanism. No matter how well organised the information management processes are, there will always be information leakage, misinterpretation of facts, or any other issue concerning information acquisition, transfer, or distribution.

Thus, the company will clearly have to face the problem of either dozing information to every single staff member in accordance with his/her rank or trusting every employee enough to allow him/her the access to the corporate database.

Dilemma #2: user/consumer responsibility vs. personal convictions

Speaking of the unfair use of public resources in connection with the given case, one must mention such aspect of accountability as the responsibility to the user as opposed to the personal convictions of the CEO of the organisation.

As the case study shows, every single member of the staff was completely baffled when realising that their suspicions were true.

However, by firing the financial manager, the CEO of the organisation also ruined the chances of the suspect for being employed as a financial manager. As the case study shows, to take the given step, the CEO had to make a deal with his conscience, therefore, facing a moral dilemma.

Dilemma #3: legal responsibility vs. the responsibility to a member of the community

As it has been stressed, the issue in question revolves around either choosing to reinforce the existing regulations concerning the work at the Museum and the enhancement of organisational behaviour principles within the mini-community that the Museum staff represents.

However, there is another way to look at the problem. By refusing to improve the standards of organisational behaviour at the Museum, the CEO puts the rest of the staff in peril, since false accusations may possibly arise, etc.

It is important that, when approaching the problem from the standpoint of human factor, which is an inevitable downside of involving people, the concept of accountability has approached the idea of responsibility, which, as it has been emphasised, are quite different ideas that only cross at some pints.

Dilemma #4: professional responsibility vs. its current boundaries

The aspect of fraudulent and corrupt behaviour definition, which is another type of accountability as interpreted in recent researches, is a nonetheless challenging issue.

Despite the fact that the given problem might seem rather far-fetched in regards to the issue in question, the standards for defining probable issues of fraud are quite questionable.

To avoid further complexities, the Museum CEO will have to consider the behaviour of the employees more closely; however, the question is, whether the people with impeccable professional record yet rather doubtful aspects of their personal life should be listed in the potential risk group.

Dilemma #5: choosing between personal trust and governance structure

The last, but definitely not the least, the issue concerning conflicts of interest, gifts, and benefits must be mentioned. Indeed, when asking why the Museum managers are so hesitant when it comes to the choice between the improvement of the current regulations and the process of raising awareness of all those concerned, therefore, reducing the probability of another fraud, one will inevitably realise that the first option is definitely the easiest one, yet clearly not the most efficient.

No matter how the rules are going to be reinforced, people will always find an avenue that will allow them to get a hold of the Museum possessions illegally. The second option, however, is much more time-consuming.

Therefore, it is clear that at present, the Museum CEOs do not take the moral concerns into account, which they should, seeing how a change in the moral principles will necessarily trigger a behavioural change, not vice versa.

Results and Their Evaluation: Regarding the Possible Issues

When it comes to the actual analysis of the possible steps that the Museum’s CEOs could make and what it would lead them to, one must admit that the ethical issue and the enhancement of regulations hare quite related to each other in that without the former, the latter would be of little use.

To give credit to where it belongs, the current Australian code concerning the accountability in public sector and the punishable offences like frauds is pretty much complete.

For example, the report paper by eh Association of the Certified Fraud Examiners (2012) offers sixteen distinct features of a fraud being planned, which means that, when applied the right way, precaution measures can be rather efficient.

However, it is necessary to admit that, the more rules are issued, the harder people will seek for avenues for bending these rules. Therefore, it is necessary to reinvent people’s idea of fraud within organisational setting.

Positive effects: exploring the opportunities

For all the moral controversies around the case, it clearly helped to outline the basic concerns for the organisation to solve.

Negative effects: what seems to be the problem

When one comes to think of the choices that the CEO of the Museum has made so far, one must admit that there is hardly anything redeemable about the given steps.

While the staff and the CEO admittedly acknowledged that they put considerable trust into the person who finally happened to be the criminal, the former does nothing to solve the obvious problem, i.e., the inefficiency of the current moral values.

While the enhancement of rules and regulations seems to be the saving grace at the moment, soon the Museum will suffer another case of fraud unless the basics of organisational values are cemented in the employees’ mind.

Conclusion: Where the Story Ends

Even though the case in point has been considered from a variety of angles, the key implications remain the same.

The analysis of the similar cases that have occurred in the recent history points at the fact that creating the environment that can be one hundred percent safe from fraud is practically impossible.

However, these studies also show that, for the most part, both the flaws in the regulation system and the misplacement of the staff, i.e., assigning the wrong person with a financial responsibility, trigger the instances of organisational fraud, as the case study by Romzek and Dubnick shows (Romzek & Dubnick 1987, p. 327).

Thesis proven: the case of fraud disclosed

While the case in point clearly shows that the organisation in which the instance of fraud took place lacks in competence regarding employee psychology; in addition, since the fraud was committed by one of the employees, it can be assumed that the leadership strategy accepted among the managers of the given organisation also leaves much to be desired.

The given revelation leads to two major conclusions, i.e., a) the regulations for the managers of the Museum are incompetent and b) due to the faults of the regulations, the trust was reposed into a wrong person.

Therefore, not only did the two factors shape the existing situation, but also one of these factors was induced by another one.

Recommendations and commentaries

Making recommendations seems especially hard in the given case, seeing how the current Australian rules concerning fraud detection have become less flimsy over the past few years and do not allow for the choice between morals and law; in any case, it is the law that wins.

However, one should still take the instances of fraud in a community as a sign of people being exposed to negative factors and, therefore, seeking the means to get rid of these factors or, at the very least, disclose all their threats and possible negative outcomes to the community.

Once people are aware of danger, they will be able to seek the means to avoid it.

Reference List

Accountability map n. d., Public Sector Commission, Australia. Association of the Certified Fraud Examiners 2012, 2012 report to the nations. Web.

Bovens, M 2007, ‘New forms of accountability and EU-governance,’ Comparative European Politics, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 104–120.

Chai, N 2009, Sustainability performance evaluation system in government: a balanced scorecard approach towards sustainable development, Springer, New York, NY.

Dowdle, M W 2006, Public accountability: designs, dilemmas and experiences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Graycar, A & Sidebottom, A 2012, ‘Corruption and control: a corruption reducing approach,’ Journal of Financial Crime, vol. 19 no. 4, pp. 284–299.

Khan, H A 2008, An introduction to public administration, University Press of America, Washington, DC.

Nosworthy, B A 1999, Role of the auditor general in public accountability: some issues, Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Romzek, B S & Dubnick, M J 1987, ‘Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the challenged tragedy,’ Public Administration Review, vol. 47 no. 3, pp. 227–238.

Topic four: political, Ethical and organisational accountability n. d., pp. 255–292.