Julius Christian L.

Yang

Journal of Medical Ethics suggests parents should have right to murder their newborn
babies, claiming it is same as abortion
Thursday, April 12, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Since abortion on-demand is legal throughout most of the First World, the next logical step in the
minds of some of the world's pseudo-intellectual elite is to legalize the murder of babies after
they are born as well. A new article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) suggests
that parents should be able to choose whether or not they want to murder their children after birth
because these tiny individuals apparently do not yet possess a "moral right to life," and are thus
not actually "persons."
Alberto Giubilini, from The University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, a post-doctoral fellow
at The University of Melbourne's Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics make their
case in a paper entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? that if abortion is legal,
then infanticide should be legal. And this argument is based on their philosophical assessment
that the two forms of murder are virtually the same thing from an ethical perspective.
"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus'
health," write the authors in their abstract. "[T]he authors argue that what we call 'after-birth
abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including
cases where the newborn is not disabled."
As reprehensible as this notion is, the authors have a point in likening abortion to infanticide -they are technically the same thing. After all, what makes a baby inside the womb any less of a
person than a baby outside the womb? According to current standards, the baby is still a "fetus"
during the few moments before delivery, but once outside the birth canal magically transforms
into a person, a dubious double-standard that the authors appear to be targeting.
On the other hand, it seems clear by their own arguments that Giubilini and Minerva, as well as
JME editor Julian Savulescu from Oxford University's Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics,
actually support the idea of murdering newborn babies, and are not simply pointing out the
logical fallacy of allowing abortion but restricting infanticide.
"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those
properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual," wrote the two authors in
an utterly disgusting and dehumanizing defense of their position. "Rather than being 'actual
persons, newborns were 'potential persons."
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/035539_Medical_ethics_newborn_babies_abortion.html

Reflection:
Having to scrutinize this article get me the creeps and the chills. At the point when including
speaks or themes about premature births gives me the goose bumps and without a doubt am
totally against it regardless of what the chances are. The extent that I was taught in my youthful
years up to this point by my guardians, instructors furthermore as per the teachings of the
Catholic church that taking a life is a grave sin and against God's teachings. I realized that
arguing about religion wouldn't solve this matter yet I remain in what I had confidence in. I've
been reading in daily papers, been viewing on TVs and been hearing gossips from other
individuals about instances of premature birth and infants that were conceived and afterward all
of a sudden be slaughtered by their own particular folks particularly moms who can't tolerate the
disaster on what brought their pregnancy. Generally moms who are doing this are the ones that
are casualties of viciousness like assault for most cases and undesirable pregnancies.
As I recall from a line in a film "you can't rectify a correct a mistake by doing another mistake.
What done will be carried out and all you to do is to manage it. Although I don't completely
comprehend what an assault exploited person does truly feel for them to settle on that drastic
choice and I can't accuse them from doing as such. Yet what I do propose is that for these ladies
who were casualties of savagery and undesirable pregnancies must experience a profound and
cozy directing and mental test and projects. They require the most extreme guidance and
consideration to get past with what they've been enduring. Furthermore I've realized that morals
shows us on doing the right thing and murdering a baby or an unborn infant which experts as yet
debating on in the event that it as of now has a life or not and its not viewed as executing on the
off chance that it was prematurely ended yet at the same time a large portion of individuals
considers it as officially killing then what more in the event that it was at that point conceived
and been breathing then somebody will end his or her life? I accept that everybody has the
privilege to life and no man has the privilege to take that away.

Making Decisions About Right and Wrong

By Margaret R. McLean

On occasion I ask students in my undergraduate ethics course at Santa Clara University to relate
their first ethical memory--what was their first choice about right or wrong, good or bad? Most
of them relate a story about a six or seven-year-old confronting a choice between honesty and
desire--the ill-gotten piece of sweet, juicy bubble gum; the quickly denied detour on the way
home from school to "the forbidden playground"; the resounding claim of ignorance when asked
who had been using the house as a backstop just prior to the crackle and sparkle of shattered
plate glass. Indeed, these are all fine examples of ethical dilemmas, those decisions between
what we want to do and what we ought to do that we have been making all our lives.
All of our lives, we've been struggling with just how it is that we ought to decide. Are there lists
to be made--columns of "good results" and "bad results" to be conceived, compared, and
contrasted? Are there rules to follow--do this; don't do that? Are there good ways to be--be
patient; don't lose your temper? We struggle not only with what in fact we ought to do, but also
with how in the world we are to decide whether it is right to lie just this once.
We all tend to approach decisions about right and wrong in one of three ways. First, there are
those folks who think that the results make all the difference. Why won't you lie? It will hurt
people; the results are bad. Second, there are those people who follow the rules. Why won't you
lie? There's a rule that says to always tell the truth, "to do unto others as you would have them do
unto you." And, thirdly, there are those individuals who aren't much interested in either results or
rules. They are interested in the kind of person you are--a person of compassion or courage. Why
won't you lie? Because I'm an honest person, a truthful person; that's just the kind of person I am.
Results; rules; character traits--all are important parts of how we decide.
Part of what makes decisions about right and wrong so difficult for us is that we don't all go
about it in the same way. That is just fine, really. Such diversity in how we decide reflects the
rich tapestry of resources we each bring to our decision making. Although some may argue for
good results and others for following the rules, one thing is certain: Ethics is always more than
just what we might like or dislike, always more than rash opinion. My choice never to eat
spinach is not an ethical choice; it merely has to do with the chemistry of my taste buds and a
particular leafy green vegetable. I don't like spinach! What ethics requires of us is making
judgments that we can explain, making judgments that rely not on opinion or our taste buds, but
on results or rules or good habits. We need to remember that how we decide is just as important
as what we decide.
Source: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/right-wrong.html

Reflection:
Having to decide, even the little ones include a mixture of feeling and sensibility that can leave
somebody bewildered. Every one of us were taught and raised by our guardians to dependably do
what needs to be done and every one of us neglected to comply with that educating. As talked
about in the above article that morals is not about making a rash conclusion, yes we settle on
something on what we think is correct however some individuals thought it would not be right.
None of us like uneasiness excessively. A tingle keeps us from sitting still. An uncomfortable
sleeping cushion keeps us from dozing. The threat of rejection can lead us to despair and
suffering.
It's similar to one time when a companion of mine obtains cash with the goal of him should
purchase the books that he needs in one of our subject in school in light of the fact that the
money that was implied for acquiring that book was lost because of wagering on amusement that
he supposes he will win however unfortunately he lost then he needs to purchase that book and
show to it to her mother. From the get go I was reluctant of loaning him the cash in view of his
wrong choice and he needs to manage it. Anyhow at the back of my mind I truly needed to help
him for the reason that I know how his guardians when they are distraught and I don't need my
companion to be beaten up and I would prefer not to have second thoughts of seeing my
companion appearing in school with wounds for not bailing him out. I realize that it isn't right to
give him the cash on the grounds that it his shortcoming from the beginning yet I couldn't let
myself do nothing for him. Be that as it may before giving him the cash I conversed with him in
regards to of the circumstances and clarified my side. In those days I thought what I did was the
correct thing to do though some individuals will consider it as a wrong doing still stand to my
choice that regardless I believe that its a moral and ethical thing to do.

Bionic man warns of corporate-driven rise of robots; Humanity may be in danger if no

ethics are enforced
Saturday, October 19, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Ethical concerns are always a topic of discussion when it comes to the intersection of technology
and humanity, and as the rise of robots progresses, there are ethical questions which need to be
addressed, says one expert.
Academic Bertolt Meyer, who is nicknamed "the bionic man," said recently "that scientists and
engineers should not be allowed to launch some technological advances on the open market
without a prior ethical debate," Britain's Guardian newspaper reports.
The keynote speaker at the "FutureFest" in east London, Meyer - who has had a cutting-edge ?
40,000 artificial lower arm and hand since 2009 - discussed whether the public should allow the
economic laws of supply and demand dictate how mankind gravitates toward a probable "bionic"
future, where bodies of those people with access and available finances will be able to augment
and enhance themselves.
'Arrogant and naive'
"We are reaching the point where people with artificial limbs may have an advantage. It they
start to appeal to everyone, a mass market will develop," he said, arguing that, in the throes of
development, engineers on the cusp of research and development don't always think through the
impact of their work and the ethical aspects involved.
In a separate interview with the Observer, Meyer said he thought the business community would
be "arrogant and naive" if it collectively continued to assume that commercial interests could and
would solve ethical dilemmas on their own.
"These issues have to be decided by law makers, but public debate like this helps to set people
thinking. It is only high-level political bodies that will have the authority to put laws into place.
They have to work out how we are going to regulate the market," he said.
He went on to note that, in some parts of the world already, cosmetic surgery has become the
new normal for the wealthy.
"Ethicists are thinking about these things already, of course, but they don't really have a public
voice," he said. "I certainly don't think all these innovations are necessarily negative, though."
As reported by the Guardian: Meyer's documentary, How to Build a Bionic Man, was shown on
Channel 4 in February and will be aired in America next month. It looks at the advanced
prosthetic limbs that will soon become available, at a cost, and also at prototypes of artificial
organs, including implantable lungs and plastic kidneys that are not rejected by the host body.

Is there a backlash coming?

So clearly, the technology is advancing rapidly - and is already becoming part of the global
lexicon.
In referencing the Paralympic Games in 2012, Meyer said that competition raised the profile of
high-performance disability, along with the question of unfair advantages such technology
creates. And he wonders if there is some sort of backlash in the offing.
"We can't leave everything to individual entrepreneurship," he said. "Hunger? Oh yes, there's an
app, or a business plan for that!' Ethical questions are on the very bottom of large corporations'
to-do lists. We cannot leave these issues to businesses alone."
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/042579_bionic_man_corporate_robots_ethics.html

Reflection:
We may replace, repair, or improve essential parts of our bodies, however there must be a living
human life form that as of now exists and on whom or in whom these medicinal mechanical
techniques happen for us to say that we are upgrading a person. We are not a gathering of
various, replaceable parts, despite the fact that we have the capacity with the assistance of very
bewildering man-made systems. Living creatures have a harmony, and an organic progression, in
a broad sense not quite the same as the sort of harmony of the most refined machine. The weights
on specialists, producers and administrators will be tremendous. The most essential inquiry is
who merits these abundant prostheses? At present, usually, they go to soldies yet consider the
possibility that some individual who lost their arm in an auto accident needed one. Imagine a
scenario where some individual was eager to pay double the expense of making a bionic arm
with a specific end goal to have their own arm removed and supplanted with prostheses. Morally
weak ground maybe, yet verifiably hard to turn down, particularly on the fact that you can then
utilize the cash to help more individuals.
It was an answer that summed where we remain on the ethical issues at play as we move towards
the period of bionic bodies. Now and then it appears to be as if individuals are basically not
considering the moral inquiries behind the headways, which are far reaching and uncommonly
vital. Is it true that we are being silly as Dr Frankenstein might have been? Blinded by the
likelihood of progression and not able to see the potential dangers sneaking behind it.

Unavoidable Ethical Questions About Hacking

By Irina Raicu
These questions follow the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Framework for Ethical Decision
Making.
The Web site wisegeek.com defines computer "hacking" as "the practice of modifying computer
hardware and software to accomplish a goal outside of the creator's original purpose." Depending
on one's perspective, the term "hacking" might bring up negative associationswith issues such
as identity theft, breaches of national security, or invasions of privacyor positive associations
with intellectual freedom and curiosity, combined with a trickster spirit and an inclination to
challenge authority and conventional norms. Either way, hacking brings up many ethical
questions.
From a Utilitarian Perspective
Some hackers argue that disclosure of information that governments or corporations try to keep
secret will ultimately provide more good than harmby making those governments and
corporations truly accountable and allowing citizens or shareholders to demand change when
needed. Do you agree? Is there any information that should really be kept secret? How do we
balance the need for transparency with the need to protect ourselves, for example, from groups
who do not believe in transparency and other democratic values? Do we trust the ability of
hackers to balance out the good and the harm that may result from their disclosures? Do we trust
governments or corporations more, when it comes to striking that balance?
From a Rights Perspective
Do all of us have an absolute right to access all the information available on the Internet? Do we
have a right to communicate and associate freely? And, if so, does hacking promote freedom of
speech and of association by breaking barriers set up around certain information? Should
hacking be seen as a way of critiquing a system in order to reform it, somewhat similar to
parody? Or might hacking in fact "chill" speech and association by letting Internet users know
that nothing they say and no groups or causes that they associate with on the Internet will remain
private, protected from potential disclosure by a hacker?
From Fairness or Justice Perspective
Some hackers see themselves as electronic Robin Hoodstaking information from those who
would hoard it, and spreading it to all. In addition, hacking groups are egalitarian: anyone can
join, regardless of gender, age, race, or class (as long as the person has access to a computer),
and the amorphous hacking (dis)organizations don't have a clear hierarchy. Does hacking then
make Internet use more fair, by allowing to any user access to information that would otherwise
be available only to some? Or is hacking an unjust takeover of information from those who don't
have the know-how or resources to protect it?

From a Common Good Perspective

Pope Paul IV described the common good as "the sum of those conditions of social life which
allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their
own fulfillment." Ready access to unlimited information is part of many hackers' credo. Is
unrestricted access to information one path to individual and communal fulfillment? Or does
hacking undermine the usefulness of the Internet as a common good because it makes users
reluctant to share information online? Overall, does hacking promote or hinder the development
of relationships and the building of community?
From a Virtue Perspective
Many hackers share a strong appreciation for certain virtues: independence, freedom of thought
and expression, modesty. However, what some hackers would describe as "sharing," others
would call "stealing." Unfettered freedom might also be described as anarchy. And, while
accusing others of dishonesty, hackers cover up their own identities in order to hide from those
who would stop them. Are hackers pushing individuals, corporations, and governments to
become more virtuous users of the Internetor are they mostly tearing down what others have
built, and ultimately limiting the usefulness of the Internet? Does hacking promote the
development of ethical character?
Source: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/hacking.html
Reflection:
As defined by wisegeek.com characterizes computer "hacking" as "the act of changing computer
hardware and programming to perform an objective outside of the maker's unique reason."
Depending on one's point of view, the expression "hacking" may raise negative relationship with
issues, for example, identity theft, breaks of national security, or attacks of protection or positive
relationship with erudite opportunity and interest, consolidated with a trickster spirit and a slant
to test power and customary standards. In any case, hacking raises numerous ethical questions.
Hacking per se is a crime that needs to be protected by law. But there is what we call ethical
hacking wherein an ethical hacker attempts to exploit the IT security of a system on behalf of its
owners by following certain polite rules, like getting a written or verbal consent from the owner
of the system before the professional conducts the test. Ethical hackers are considered by the
society as a legal and legitimate as long as that person does not go beyond his jurisdiction and
break protocol and goes beyond his limits to the extent of accessing files and programs without
his/her clients authorization. Because there are hackers that who focuses on hacking for personal
gain and whose intent is to steal, threaten and destroy should be thrown in jail. I consider hackers
have a lot to offer. They provide a balance of power by virtue of their creativity and technical
skills. I think we need to protect and recognize them and find ways of working together. Yes, I do
believe that hacking -- when properly defined -- is an ethical activity. And yes, I do believe that
understanding our freedoms and rights and protecting all that's good in our society while
preventing all that's bad is the right approach.

Kidneys for Sale

By Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez
When it comes to bodily parts, it's a seller's market. That's the opinion, anyway, of Barry Jacobs,
who proposed to set up shop as an international broker for bodily parts. His service would
include matching up kidney "donors" with patients needing kidney transplants. The donor would
receive a healthy paycheck, the recipient a healthy kidney and Jacobs, a healthy percentage of
the entire deal. American ingenuity and free enterprise at their best. Or is it?
Currently, prospects are grim for people in need of organ transplants. For every 100,000
transplant operations needed each year, only 10,000 are performed. Biomedical breakthroughs
have greatly increased our capacity to perform successful transplants, increasing the demand for
transplantable organs. But the supply of organs has not increased. Many people are simply
reluctant to donate their bodily parts. In response to the shortage, proposals have come forth
advocating the sale of non-vital human organs.
Proponents of the organs-for-sale scheme maintain that we have a moral duty to save lives and to
reduce human suffering when it is in our capacity to do so. Thousands upon thousands of patients
die each year simply because of an inadequate supply of organs. Patients needing kidneys wait
years in hope of donors, all the while undergoing painful and costly dialysis treatments. Allowing
a commercial market in organs could put an end to needless deaths and suffering by increasing
the supply of organs. Clearly, cash payments will increase people's willingness to "donate" body
parts, thereby increasing the supply. One need only look at the success of the commercial
markets in increasing the supply of blood and sperm. Given the vast number of people who
would be willing to part with their organs for a price, those needing organs will have a much
greater chance of getting healthier or better matched ones, increasing the number of successful
transplants. Up to 70 percent of transplanted kidneys will probably fail over the next 10 years,
but this poor long-term outlook could be vastly improved if donors were better matched to
recipients. Finally, by increasing the supply of organs, the market mechanism will eventually
bring the price of organs down, so more people will be able to afford them.
Those who oppose the sale of human organs contend that society may have a duty to preserve
life and relieve human suffering, but not by any means whatsoever. In particular, society should
not adopt any practices that would create injustices or would violate the rights of individuals.
Allowing organs to be bought and sold will do both.
Justice demands that every person have an equal right to life. To protect this right, society has an
obligation to ensure that every person--whether rich or poor--has equal access to medical
benefits. But if a market in organs were to develop, ability to pay would determine who could
buy organs, while economic need would determine who would be motivated to sell their organs.
The very wealthy would end up buyers of the organs being sold by the very poor. A market in
organs would thus benefit the wealthy while putting pressures on the poor to endanger their own
health. Such an unequal distribution of health benefits and burdens would be unjust.

Moreover, individuals have a right to live their lives with freedom and dignity. A market in
organs would inevitably lead to abuses that would violate the freedom and dignity of individuals.
Allowing organs to be bought and sold would lead to what one critic called the "plundering of
peasants' parts for profits"--the exploitation of the poor and ignorant, especially in impoverished
third-world countries. People living in extreme poverty are often desperate and ill-informed.
Profit seekers would take advantage of this, obtaining "consent" from those who feel compelled
by necessity to sell their organs, and who may not have a clear idea of the consequences of what
they were doing. Such a scheme would encourage the most vulnerable in society to treat
themselves as commodities and allow others to violate their rights for commercial gain.
The need for organs will only grow and, until the shortage of organs is alleviated, it is certain
that thousands will die annually. But the moral issues surrounding the selling of organs promise
to remain very much alive. We will have to choose between two sets of moral values: the value
we place on preventing death and alleviating suffering, and the value we place on respect for
human dignity and our commitment to meeting human needs in a fair and equitable manner.
Source: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n2/kidneys.html
Reflection:
Uncertainties about the accessibility of organs for transplantation ought not visually impaired
one to the respect and significance of every individual. We ought to additionally permit ourselves
to view things in an alternate light to the particular case that promptly rings a bell. This article
has concentrated on whether there are moral contentions that render payment to kidney donors
naturally wrong. My decision is there are no persuading arguments. With respect to giving a
kidney as a bona fide act, selling kidney ought to be genuine also, as both demonstrations
giving and offering are the aftereffect of a choice made voluntarily. In the case of donation, the
individual is noble; in the case of selling, the individual desires to be compensated financially.
The standards of society change constantly. Behavior that used to be viewed as inadmissible a
couple of years ago, for example, performing abortions, having kids without being married or
even transplantations from dead bodies, are currently viewed as 'typical'. Accordingly, a future in
which persons have the self-rule to purchase and offer a kidney is not unimaginable. A lawful
exchange can be directed, while the underground market and present practices can't terrible
enactment can kill individuals. Why is it more terrible than offering one's sperm or ova,
exchanges that are legitimate in the United States? Commercialization of sperm and ova ought to
be ethically faultier than offering a kidney in light of the fact that those cells can create entirely
new human being.
Discussions on the offering and purchasing of human organs have in the past centered around
moral talk instead of the law and the open deliberations were basically against the
commercialization, yet change is currently imperative. The overall population is more mindful
than at any time in the past of their rights and requests in regards to individual independence;
they likewise see morals in a more extensive connection.
Whistleblower Ruby Tuason: 'I met Napoles through my late husband'

ANC Thu, Feb 13, 2014

Ruby Tuason, one of the accused in the pork barrel scam who has become a conditional state
witness, said she met Janet Lim Napoles, a businesswoman who ran fake NGOs that used public
funds to implement bogus projects.
In a Senate Blue Ribbon committee hearing on the pork barrel scam, Tuason said she met
Napoles through her late husband sometime in 2004.
[My husband] called up to tell me that he was bringing somebody who might be interested to
buy my house, which I was selling...[at] that time in Bel-Air Makati, Tuason said. He arrived
with Mrs. Napoles and another one. We talked and I showed her the house. In that conversation, I
asked what her business was and she told me she was a supplier of the government. She did
government contracts.
Tuason recalled Napoles befriended her and asked to introduce her to politicians.
She also mentioned [and asked me] to introduce her to my politician friends like Senator
Estrada [because] I was the former Social Secretary of [Jinggoy Estradas] father [Joseph
Estrada]. She didnt end up buying my house but after that she had befriended me and invited me
for lunch, invited me to her office to show me the things she was supposed to be supplying, she
said.
She noted, She kept on telling me, Pakilala mo ko, pakilala mo ko.
Tuason said she finally called Jinggoy but he refused.
When I told her ayaw ka niyang [Jinggoy] makilala, sabi niya hindi sabihin mo nagbibigay ako
ng commission, 40 percent, she said.
(She told me to tell Jinggoy that she gave a 40 percent commission.)
Tuason was earlier invited by Blue Ribbon Committee to reveal everything she knows about the
P10 billion pork barrel scam.
She returned to the Philippines last Friday saying she was bothered by her conscience and has
offered to expose her knowledge about the scam. Tuason is also facing plunder charges in
connection to the scam.
Whistleblowers Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, and Merlina Suas, and other former employees of
Napoles were also present in the hearing to help corroborate Tuasons statements.
Source: https://anc.yahoo.com/news/tuason--napoles-befriended-me-020222401.html
Reflection:

The above article which concerns Ruby Tuason testifying in the court is an act of whistle
blowing. Whistle blowing means calling attention to wrongdoing that is occurring within an
organization. The Government Accountability Project lists four ways to blow the whistle:
reporting wrongdoing or a violation of the law to the proper authorities such as a
supervisor, a hotline or an Inspector General

refusing to participate in workplace wrongdoing

testifying in a legal proceeding

leaking evidence of wrongdoing to the media

Whistle blowing has to do with ethics because it represents a persons understanding, at a deep
level, that an action his or her organization is taking is harmfulthat it interferes with peoples
rights or is unfair or detracts from the common good. Whistle blowing also calls upon the
virtues, especially courage, as standing up for principles can be a punishing experience. Even
though laws are supposed to protect whistle blowers from retaliation, people who feel threatened
by the revelations can ostracize the whistle blower, marginalizing or even forcing him or her out
of public office. On the other hand, there have been occasions when the role of whistle blower
has actually catapulted people into higher office and has earned the respect of constituents.
Whistle blowing has something to do with ethics on the grounds that it speaks to an individual's
understanding, at a profound level, that an activity his or her association is taking is unsafe that it
meddles with individuals' rights or is out of line or degrades the benefit of everyone. Whistle
blowing likewise calls upon the ideals, particularly boldness as standing up for principles can be
a punishing experience. Despite the fact that laws should protect whistle blowers from
retaliation, individuals who feel destabilized by the disclosures can segregate the whistle
blowers, minimizing or actually driving him or her out of open office. Then again, there have
been events when the part of whistle blowers has really shot individuals into higher office and
has earned the admiration of constituents.
Unveiling and revealing the truth to the public by testifying on the filthy acts of the organization
theyre in especially if it concerns the government with high and powerful officials is a bold act
considering the facts that not just their life but the entire family and loved ones as well will be in
danger.

Whistle Blowing in the Public Sector

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introduction/whistleblo
wing.html
By Judy Nadler and Miriam Schulman
These materials were prepared for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics program in
Government Ethics by Senior Fellow Judy Nadler and Communications Director Miriam
Schulman. The Center provides training in local government ethics for public officials. For more
information, contact Hana Callaghan.
What
is
the
definition
of
whistle
blowing?
What
does
whistle
blowing
have
to
do
with
ethics?
How
can
government
encourage
whistle
blowing?
What
ethical
dilemmas
does
whistle
blowing
present?
Resources on whistle blowing
What is the definition of whistle blowing?
According to George Kerevan, Word of the Week columnist for The Scotsman, The
etymological origins of whistle blowing are gloriously obscure. Yet even without knowing the
terms pedigree, we get a vivid picture from the words themselves. Kerevan suggests the obvious
onea police officer shrilling on a whistle when he or she catches a crime in progress.
Whistle blowing means calling attention to wrongdoing that is occurring within an organization.
The Government Accountability Project lists four ways to blow the whistle:

reporting wrongdoing or a violation of the law to the proper authorities.

such as a supervisor, a hotline or an Inspector General

refusing to participate in workplace wrongdoing

testifying in a legal proceeding

leaking evidence of wrongdoing to the media

Of course, whistle blowing goes on in the private sector, where some of the most famous figures
include former Enron Vice President Sherron Watkins and tobacco executive Jeffrey Wigand. But
because government, by its very nature, is supposed to be open and transparent, full disclosure of
unethical or illegal behavior in the public sphere is particularly important. Not all of the
problems in the public sphere are, however, generated within the government organization;
outside vendors, contractors, and individuals can participate in and even breed government
corruption.

What does whistle blowing have to do with ethics?

A whistle blower once testified in a California court about how his boss had regularly ordered
him to discard some of the companys toxic waste into a local storm drain rather than dispose of
it properly. Why, the judge wanted to know, had the man finally decided to step forward after
having participated in this illegal dumping for years. Well, the man explained, I was fishing
with my grandson, and it suddenly occurred to me that the waste I was dumping was going to
pollute the water so that he might never be able to go fishing with his grandson.
Whistle blowing has to do with ethics because it represents a persons understanding, at a deep
level, that an action his or her organization is taking is harmfulthat it interferes with peoples
rights or is unfair or detracts from the common good. Whistle blowing also calls upon the
virtues, especially courage, as standing up for principles can be a punishing experience. Even
though laws are supposed to protect whistle blowers from retaliation, people who feel threatened
by the revelations can ostracize the whistle blower, marginalizing or even forcing him or her out
of public office. On the other hand, there have been occasions when the role of whistle blower
has actually catapulted people into higher office and has earned the respect of constituents. (eg?)
How can government encourage whistle blowing?
In an article about whistle blowing in a business context , Lilanthi Ravishankar makes a useful
distinction between external and internal whistle blowing. She argues that companies should
encourage internal whistle blowing so that problems are solved within the organization before
employees feel they must go outside to get action. The same is true for government bodies,
which need to know about problems earlybefore illegal contracts must be renegotiated or
aquifers have been polluted or the publics money has been squandered or unethical behavior has
become front-page news.
She makes several suggestions about how to encourage internal whistle blowing in companies.
We repeat some of them here, with slight modifications for a government context:

Create a policy about reporting illegal or unethical practices, which should include:
o Formal mechanisms for reporting violations, such as hotlines and mailboxes
o Clear communications about the process of voicing concerns, such as a specific
chain of command, or the identification of a specific person to handle complaints
o Clear communications about bans on retaliation

Get endorsement of the policy from top officialsmayor, manager, councilmembers,

boardsand publicize the organizations commitment to the process. Elected and
administrative leadership must encourage ethical behavior and hold everyone within the
organization to the highest standards, including the disclosure of activities that would
have a negative impact on the publics business.

Investigate and follow up promptly on all allegations of misconduct. Report on these

investigations to the council or board.

What ethical dilemmas does whistle blowing present?

When a person encounters wrongdoing in the public sphere, his or her first step should probably
be to use the organizations internal whistle blowing mechanisms. William Black, professor of
law and economics at University of Missouri-Kansas City, was himself a whistle blower when he
worked as a Savings and Loan regulator in the 1980s. During a term as visiting scholar at the
Ethics Center, he wrote about his experience:
Whistle blowers in the public sector often face the unique problem that their disclosure may
constitute a crime. This can create an ethical dilemma when the ongoing misconduct is severe
and there is no reasonable prospect that the abuse will end absent blowing the whistle.I would
still recommend trying to get the responsible organs (e.g., your agency's/department's
congressional oversight committees and/or inspector general) to take action first unless the threat
to public safety was imminent.
All government bodies should have fairly straightforward lines of authority. For example, if a
councilperson has a problem with city staff, he or she would go to the city manager. If an
employee of the water district sees wrongdoing, he or she would start with a supervisor and
move up the chain of command, and so forth. Its always best to start with the mechanisms the
organization has set up to deal with problems because these represent the best chance at an
amicable solution.
If this process does not produce results, however, its not enough to say, Well, I did my best. If
wrongdoing is not being addressed within the organization, it may be time to move outsideto
the district attorney, the grand jury, or to the press.
Kirk Hanson, Ethics Center executive director, and Jerry Ceppos, former vice president/news,
Knight-Ridder, have written on the ethics of leaking information to the press and suggest these
considerations:
The first thing a potential leaker should ask is the status of the information itself. Is the
information classified, proprietary, or otherwise protected? Is there a system in place
which clearly considers this information restricted? If the information is clearly intended to be
protected, then the leaker must meet a stiff test if he or she wants to leak it.
The second consideration is whether the potential leaker has a specific obligation, legal or
ethical, to protect the information, or has the information only because another person violated
his or her obligation to keep it secret. If so, then it is a much more serious matter to reveal it.
The third consideration is whether the information is about public or private matters. Information
about anothers sexual orientation, about his or her private finances, or about personal phone
calls has more of a claim to privacy than information about a persons actions as a corporate
executive or a government official. The difficult cases, of course, are those where the private life
of individuals arguably influences their public actions.

Hanson and Ceppos also argue that potential leakers must assess the good and harm their leak
may do. When lives are at stake or millions of public dollars are being misappropriated, those
concerns for the public good trump the harm to personal privacy or government secrecy.
On the other hand, a leaker must determine if the conduct he or she is exposing represents actual
wrongdoing or if it is simply represents a policy disagreement. Of course, much of the publics
business should be debated in public, and speaking up about disagreements on most issues is not
only acceptable but also desirable. Closed-door sessions, however, are secret for a reason.
Revelations about a citys interest in a particular piece of property may boost the price of that
parcel. Exposure of sensitive information about a hiring or firing decision may needlessly cause
harm to an individual. As much as council or board members views may differ on these issues,
they should remain secret if the problem does not rise to the level of misconduct.