Sue is a dental hygienist, employed in an office with another hygienist. This hygienist has 11 years work experience in this industry. Both Sue and this hygienist shared a good friendship together. However, sue noticed that most of the patients have sub gingival calculus after the other hygienist cleans their teeth. When sue observed careful about how the other hygienist is doing the process, sue could see that she is using an anterior sickle instrument and only scales suprgingvally. Sue found that this is an unethical practice done by her colleague that is causing harm to the patients. As per the law, the other hygienist is not supposed to do an act that is harmful to the patients. Hence, watching this, setting aside her friendship with the …show more content…
A patient in torment or at health risk from an intense dental condition ought to be acknowledged for talk of the condition, analyzed if showed, then either treated or properly alluded. If the hygienist would have done her duties in an ethical manner and in compliance with the laws and regulations, the issues could be avoided. Due to her this unethical professional practice, more patients have health issues. This will also be a risky matter for the continuity of her profession as a hygienist. Hence, the hygienist had to ensure a duty of care to the patients with her quality services. Conclusion In spite of knowing that such health issue may happen to the patients by using the anterior sickle instrument, she continued to do the same. This is an unethical practice, that reflects complete dishonesty to her profession. Moreover, the reaction from the dentist employer was not proper. The dentist employer did not provide an immediate solution to this issue. However, the act of Sue was proper as she informed her employer when saw the unlawful and unethical act of the other