Part I a. Principles demonstrated byi. Sanfiel: The principle shown by Sanfiel is nonmaleficence (Pozgar, 2014). This means non-harming or inflicting the least harm for financial gain. It is clear that Sanfiel was intentional in inflicting injury to the patients and Charter. He disclosed the confidential information of the patients to the media after Charter declined his demands of exchanging the computer for $20,000. ii. The State Board of Nursing: The principle indicated is beneficence. The Board suspended the license of Senfiel and placed him on probation for five years as he had violated the nursing rules and regulations. The Board did this to ensure that the well-being of the patients is maintained. b. Virtues and values held by:i. Sanfiel: He held honesty as he did not deny his actions of disclosing the information to the news media. He was also detached. He did not care about the injuries that he would cause to the patients. ii. The State Board of Nursing: The Board was conscientious. This is because it is the moral integrity of the board to ensure that there is strict regard for doing right. iii. Charter: The hospital was tolerance. This was seen when Charter obtained an injunction that prohibited Sanfiel from disclosing confidential information of the patients. iv. The news Media: Detachment. The news media was not concerned about the needs of the patients as they showed the information of the patients to the general public. c. Assume you are Sanfiel and you just discovered the computer. Assume you do not know the outcome that we now know from this case.i. As Sanfiel, identify an ethical issue you are facing: Respecting the privacy of the patients, respect for anonymity and confidentiality, nonmaleficence, and informed consent. ii. Identify the relevant facts: As a healthcare provider, it is essential to understand your mandate is to protect the privacy of the patients and not bring them to harm intentionally or unintentionally. iii. Develop alternative actions to solve the ethics issue: Sanfiel should have returned the information to Charter and not ask for financial gain in return when the agents said that they did not have the jurisdiction towards the case. This would have indicated that Sanfiel is a professional and adheres to the rules and regulations and code of ethics of nursing. iv. Evaluate the alternatives: Being empathetic means that Sanfiel would have respected the confidentiality of the patients by returning the hard disc to Charter. This action also shows personal integrity. However, compliance would have been seen if Sanfiel returned the computer to Charter as requested. v. Identify a decision and explain how your consideration of the factors listed in #4 supports that decision: Being empathetic means that Sanfiel would have respected the confidentiality of the patients by returning the hard disc to Charter. This action also shows personal integrity. However, compliance would have been seen if Sanfiel returned the computer to Charter as requested.vi. Reflect on the ethics decision outcome: Doing what is indicated in number 5 would not have led to the suspension of the license of practice and probation for five years. Part II (a)Facts: Proenza Sanfiel is a psychiatric nurse who is licensed. He obtains a computer that was previously owned by Charter Behavior Health System; which is a psychiatric hospital in Orlando. The computer that Sanfiel acquired had health records of 526 patients. Sanfiel took it upon himself to contact local law enforcement and the State attorney’s office to help with the investigation as he recalled that the hospital was once investigated for fraud. After the agencies declined Sanfiel’s request, he called the media and provided the patient’s information but asked the names to be blurred. Sanfiel believed that Charter should have deleted the information before donating it. He told the media about the names, dates of admission, diagnosis, type of addiction and treatments that the patients received. The media broadcasted the story and also went a step further to contact a patient who was distressed by the inability of the hospital to keep his details as confidential. The Department of Health thus suspended Sanfiel’s psychiatric nursing license and placed him on probation for five years for revealing information of patients that were meant to be confidential. Sanfiel appeals the final order that was issued by the State Board of Nursing following the disciplinary proceedings. The District Court of Appeal, Thompson J, held that Sanfiel’s deliberate actions of revealing the confidential information of patients to the media was not professional and thus justified the suspension of the license as well as probation of five years.What legal claim(s) applies? The case of Sanfield v. Department of Health involves medical malpractice where Sanfiel intentionally provided confidential medical information of patients to the media. One of the legal claims, in this case, is a breach of medical confidentiality (Fry & Veatch, 2000). Sanfiel as a healthcare professional ought to have returned the information he had to Charter rather than disclosing the information to the third party without consent. The second claim is a breach of privacy claims. The media was able to contact the patients, and this is not allowed in the medical field. Elements of the two claims. Both breaches of privacy claims and breach of medical confidentiality have four components. The first element is intrusion (Herring, 2018). The second element is the public disclosure of private facts. The third element is placing the patients in a false light in the public eye. The fourth element is an appropriation of the name of the plaintiff for the benefits of the defendant. Facts relating to each element. i. Intrusion: the fact that Charter did not delete the information of patients before donating the computer led to other parties getting hold of the confidential information. ii. Public disclosure of private facts: Sanfiel was able to access the information which he released to the media and the public was able to know different facts of patients that were meant to be private. iii. Placing the patients in a false light in the public eye: This means that the patients did not want to be in the limelight for something that was intended to be private. iv. Appropriation of the name of the plaintiff for the benefits of the defendant: Sanfiel is the plaintiff in this case, and he believes that suspension of his license was wrong as he was trying to help in the investigation of Charter.Arguments of the defendant: The District of Health argues that Sanfiel was licensed and the license was active when he provided the confidential information to the media. Therefore, the Board had a jurisdiction to discipline him. The Board also argues that professional misconduct includes violation of confidential information and knowledge about patients.How does the court rule and why? The court affirmed the order of suspending the appellant’s license of psychiatric nursing and places him on probation for five years. This is because the appellant intentionally disclosed confidential information of the patients.What are the ethics and how could this lawsuit be prevented in the future?Part II (b)The position I take is agreeing with the court’s rule. This is because, as a medical professional, it is critical to ensure that you adhere to the ethics and laws of the profession. Sanfiel should not have disclosed confidential information to the media. His argument of revealing the information as a private individual is not justified as he was licensed as a nurse. His intentions were malicious as he wanted $20,000 from Charter in exchange for the information that he had.