Author Archive

Is whistleblowing ethical?

November 24, 2009 4 comments

Is whistleblowing ethical?
The above article is about a wrongful termination of one of the research assistants working in the Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences Department. Robert McGee, 54, filed the suit against the University Board of Regents after he was terminated from his job as a research assistant. He was fired because he reported safety violations in the laboratory. McGee said he saw Assistant Prof. Michael Hartman, who led the project, engage in various safety protocol violations, including dumping dangerous chemicals down a drain and entering another lab without proper access. McGee said Hartman also put him in a dangerous situation in which he could have been exposed to the highly radioactive isotope Cesium-137.
The main issue in this article is whether or not it is ethical to fire a loyal worker for whistle blowing. I think it is morally wrong to terminate someone from the job just because McGee noticed that there was something wrong.
Some say that whistleblowers are noble characters, willing to sacrifice personally and professionally to expose organizational practices that are wasteful, fraudulent, or harmful to the public safety. Others suggest that whistleblowers are, by and large, disgruntled employees who maliciously and recklessly accuse individuals they feel have wronged them in order to attain their own selfish goals. Whatever your personal view of whistleblowers and whistle blowing, as an organizational policy-maker you must consider the issue objectively. It is not an issue that can be ignored, due to the possible negative consequences for both your employees and your organization.

Categories: Uncategorized

Good jobs, but not for disabled?

November 21, 2009 Leave a comment

Good jobs, but not for disabled?
Many companies look for ways to keep “costly” employees out of the labor pool. Phrases like “moral hazard” and “risk management” are seldom heard in everyday conversations about jobs. But they are part of a little-known language that is now being used to impose the latest forms of employment discrimination upon disabled adults, including highly qualified professionals. As employers increasingly try to hold down the costs of health insurance and retirement benefits, they are re-examining these concepts in the search for new methods of reducing expenses by removing disabled personnel from the labor force.
Employers may consider hiring people with disabilities but hesitate because they wonder if those individuals will wind up increasing health insurance costs for their companies. Although it is not lawful in the U.S. and many other countries to not hire an individual on this basis, it is likely that some hiring decisions have unfortunately been made due to this fear. What an employer may fear, specifically, is that a disabled worker, having greater healthcare expenditures, will cause the health insurance provider to raise his company’s premiums to account for the added expense. The employer neither wishes to have the cost of employee benefits rise nor to have to pass on greater employee contributions to the cost just because of one person. This concern decreases the apparent value of the job candidate with a disability, and, as a result, that person is passed over for the job.
I believe it is unethical to fire disable people on the above mentioned grounds. Employers should understand that disable people are not ill people. There is a misconception. Is that people with disabilities get sick or need more health care more often than normal. Disability is not necessarily synonymous with ill health. Many disabilities have no health effects other than that which caused the disability. A deaf person is just as likely to be in the peak of health as a hearing person. Someone who uses a wheelchair may have no other health care concerns than whatever caused the paralysis or other condition that necessitated the wheelchair. That cause may very likely have no ongoing repercussions or need further treatment.

Categories: Uncategorized

Unethical Conduct

November 6, 2009 4 comments

Unethical Conduct
This article is about David whose mother was threated in Wuesthoff hospital. While sick she had a battery of tests and was moved from one room and section to another many times. During the moves, various things disappeared. Items lost and not located in lost and found included all her clothing, her jewelry, gifts bought for her while she was ill in the hospital, and both her upper and lower dentures. At discharge, they had to get clothes out of lost and found for her to wear home. They also refused to reimburse her for her dentures at that time.
David went to the hospital and found a person responsible for reimbursement. He did not demand payment for anything except for the lost dentures since his mother was in a nursing home and on social security, and there was no way she could afford to replace them.
At that time, David brought a written estimate for $1000 to replace his mother’s teeth from a local denture clinic to Karen L. Davila. She made sure that a check was written to that clinic to replace her teeth, acknowledging their responsibility for the loss. Unfortunately, David’s mother died in February, being too ill to ever make it in to get her impressions.
Karen now refuses to reissue a check reimbursing her estate for the teeth they lost. She claims she does not have to reimburse for teeth they lost since David’s mother is now dead.
Even though it is legal I think it is unethical. I don’t understand why she would refuse to write a check. The hospital made already enough money on David’s mother stay. If David’s mother wouldn’t have died Karen would write her a check, but unfortunately she passed away and check wasn’t taken into consideration. But the bills still have to be paid fot these dentures! I think Karen should have helped David.

Categories: Uncategorized

Legal But Unethical

November 5, 2009 1 comment
Categories: Uncategorized

Unethical Shopping Tactics

November 4, 2009 4 comments

Unethical Shopping Tactics
The above article is about legal but unethical retail shopping tactics of “devil shoppers.” These customers are the ones who buying a product, taking advantage of the product rebate, then returning the product for a refund. To be more specific, these unethical behaviors include buying clothing or another item, wearing it (or using it) once, then returning it, buying an item and returning it with the intent of buying it at the reduced “open-box” price, or buying clothing or another item with the intent of returning it later and re-buying it at a markdown price, etc.
I think it is unethical to buy a product with intention of using and eventually returning it. If a person can not afford, for example, a camera, may be he/she shouldn’t be buying it. Anyways what good will camera do if it ca be used only one time? Next time he/she will need it again. Furthermore, these unethical behaviors can create a major economic havoc for the company.

Categories: Uncategorized

Unethical to Advertise Medications

November 4, 2009 Leave a comment

Unethical to Advertise Medications
The above article is about whether it is ethical or unethical to advertise drugs. In one survey, half of the respondents believed that drug ads had to be approved by the government before they were aired or printed, and nearly half thought that only “entirely safe” drugs were allowed to be promoted. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the government agency that has jurisdiction over drug promotion, rarely gets a chance to review ad copy before the public sees it. Months can go by before the agency catches up with any misrepresentation, puffery, or inaccuracies. Those months inevitably see burgeoning sales of the drug.
It is unethical to advertise any medications because it convinces people to buy the drugs they may not even needed. Add to that $7 billion spent on advertising to doctors and other professionals, and it’s obvious why drug costs are so high in this country. Spending on drugs is only part of the overall increase in health-care costs that have now risen to the point that the U.S. is the world leader at $5,200 per capita per year. I think that these drug ads are nothing but sales pitches. Also drug companies are unconcerned with benefiting consumers or their health, and the FDA does an inadequate job of making sure the ads are not false or misleading due to the lack of time.

Categories: Uncategorized

Unethical Use of Drugs

November 4, 2009 1 comment

Unethical Use of Drugs
Above article is about the question Does use of illegal performance enhancing drugs by some athletes coerce other athletes to also use them to remain competitive? There are several pros and cons are described. Some people say that a person has a right to choose whether to risk harm to one’s own body, and the others say the use of drugs in sports can place athletes in a situation in which they feel coerced into taking drugs in order to compete which is very unethical. On the surface, it would seem that athletes can choose freely, but what about the pressures created by the need for success in competition? According to the article athletes most of the time are forced to use the drugs to remain competitive.
First of all I think it is unethical to use the drugs in order to perform better. Secondly, I disagree with this point of view. No one is forced to become a competitive athlete. The pressures that the non-drug users may well feel are no different than any other pressures that come with committing oneself to playing the game at a relatively high level of competition. If some athletes spend much more time in the weight room than others and thereby build their muscular strength to levels significantly higher than their opponents, those opponents who want to remain competitive may feel compelled to also put in more time with weights.

Categories: Uncategorized