No accreditation means no funding, means no hospital, means no job. So by your definition, the only way doctors can remain doctors at said hospital is by being evil. Hence, I would blame the short-sighedness of whoever created and approved for the rules of accreditation for hospitals, not the people at the whims of those rules.

If you're right, all it means is that no ethical doctor would remain at said hospital. Ethics only count when they go against one's own interests, otherwise they'd be pointless.

I can't believe you're making excuses for doctors who (if the story is true) tried to bully a woman against her will into having major spinal surgery that she clearly didn't need.

Not quite making excuses, just pointing out that the system that necessitates 'evil' behavior is also to blame...

Wrong, there are many people who may go to that hospital by choice. It only is the act of lying and not obeying the patients wishes that are evil.

If they can't keep their accreditation then perhaps they could offer discounts to entice people to their hospital.

One's choices are never completely at the whim of someone else's rules.

Don't downmod this, it has a valid point. It's by far better if the rules of the game don't give incentives to being evil. If they do it's as good as guaranteed that sometime somewhere you will get this kind of incident. Whether you choose to also blame the individuals involved is up to you, but it's the rule-makers who created this.

Every rule system ever designed has the potential to be misinterpreted, misused, and create incentives that were never intended.

Rule systems and rule makers can't be held responsible for idiotic/selfish/malicious behavior by individuals. Yes rules and systems can be refined to improve them but ultimately it will always be up to the individual to exercise judgement and moral character. So I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. If you blame the system for being misused you miss the point.