The Harvard Health Letter
A current issue of the Havard Health Letter published a list of the top ten health stories of 2006. Although all of these issues deal with health stories, most of them also have much of a business ethics aspect. Once again, Chris Macdonald's Business Ethics Blog has helped me to furthur my research. Here are his thoughts on the issue, "The lesson: across the world, most health care is delivered either by, or with the help of, business. The decisions corporations make matter to our health. So, it follows almost trivially that most health-related news is also going to be related to business ethics."
Here are some of the topics covered in this issue, my comments, and there relation between health issues and business ethics. Once again it is impossible to actually read these articles without a subscription, so I will include a summary for those of you who do not feel like paying twenty-four bucks to follow up on this. :)
Germ warfare—and the germs are winning some battles.
Big Ol' drug companies are now researching to create drugs for some "illnesses" that don't need them. Oh, you got germs and now you have a small cold and a runny nose. The drug company wants you to purchase their medicine to make your cold end tomorrow, instead of in two or three days. Just another way for them to make money. Is it really fair that the companies that are supposed to be helping the public's health, are more interested in the profits made by selling drugs to the public. If they are making more money by letting a disease continue through the use of buying drugs every month to slow it down, why make a drug to stop it? Their profits need to be 2nd in the line of importance, although today it seems their priorities are ordered through greed.
Vaccines, kid stuff no more.
When we are little, we receive every vaccination possible, or else we are not allowed to continue on with our education. As time has passed, the drug companies realized that they can extend their markets to adults, by having certain vaccinations be required for college, or even for a career. Just another place to prove drug companies' wonderful values, morals, and ethics.
Calls for FDA reform getting louder and clearer.
Finally, comone noticed that maybe we need to watch these drug companies' actions. They key issue in this article is that drug companies need to do more to moniter drugs once they are "on the market" or in the bodies of the public. Why would drug companies want to spend extra money on monitering this, when it causes them no benefit?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"Ethics Pays!" (or at least: "Lack of Ethics Costs!")
http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/2007_03_01_archive.html
Amazingly, I found a blog by a man named Chris Macdonald, called The Business Ethics Blog. Now that is right up my alley. He has many different blogs concentrating on todays issues with business' unethical behavior. I chose my favorite of his articles, the one that most concerns my subject, but I hope to make further use of his blog in my research.
From today's NY Times: Editor Fired After Uproar Over Simpson
Although you cannot get the entire article without a five dollar subscription, I will give you a brief idea of whats going on here.
Judith Regan, the firebrand editor who stirred up decade-old passions last month with her plan for a book and television interview with O. J. Simpson, was fired on Friday by HarperCollins, the publishing company that oversaw her book business. HarperCollins announced the firing, “effective immediately,” in a two-sentence news release... (and thats all you will get from the site without a subscription.)
Chris' thoughts : So, the positive ethics-spin: "Look! HarperCollins & News Corporation are responsive to public values!"The negative ethics-spin: "HarperCollins & News Corporation love ya when it looks like you'll make them money, and hates you when it looks like a project is going to hurt the company's image."
My thoughts: Although the O.J. Simpson case has been lying dead for some great while, I do not find it unethical to produce anything with interviews from him. The business got scared that the public would believe that they backed up Simpson in his murder case, and it scared them. Although from the front side, the public may see this as the business being ethical for firing her because of her thoughts of even mentioning Simpson and his answers within the interview, it's not. It is completely ethical for her and the business to publish this interview. Every business is too scared of what the public with think of it. Although they were trying to get the "ethical business" theme across to the public, by firing one of there employees over this somewhat trivial issue makes them seem even more unethical.
Amazingly, I found a blog by a man named Chris Macdonald, called The Business Ethics Blog. Now that is right up my alley. He has many different blogs concentrating on todays issues with business' unethical behavior. I chose my favorite of his articles, the one that most concerns my subject, but I hope to make further use of his blog in my research.
From today's NY Times: Editor Fired After Uproar Over Simpson
Although you cannot get the entire article without a five dollar subscription, I will give you a brief idea of whats going on here.
Judith Regan, the firebrand editor who stirred up decade-old passions last month with her plan for a book and television interview with O. J. Simpson, was fired on Friday by HarperCollins, the publishing company that oversaw her book business. HarperCollins announced the firing, “effective immediately,” in a two-sentence news release... (and thats all you will get from the site without a subscription.)
Chris' thoughts : So, the positive ethics-spin: "Look! HarperCollins & News Corporation are responsive to public values!"The negative ethics-spin: "HarperCollins & News Corporation love ya when it looks like you'll make them money, and hates you when it looks like a project is going to hurt the company's image."
My thoughts: Although the O.J. Simpson case has been lying dead for some great while, I do not find it unethical to produce anything with interviews from him. The business got scared that the public would believe that they backed up Simpson in his murder case, and it scared them. Although from the front side, the public may see this as the business being ethical for firing her because of her thoughts of even mentioning Simpson and his answers within the interview, it's not. It is completely ethical for her and the business to publish this interview. Every business is too scared of what the public with think of it. Although they were trying to get the "ethical business" theme across to the public, by firing one of there employees over this somewhat trivial issue makes them seem even more unethical.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Possibility of an Ethical Business World
Brown, Sharie A. "Hall Monitors in the Workplace." Annual Editions: Business Ethics Winter 2003, Vol. 18, No. 16: 72-74.
O'Toole, James. "Advice from Aristotle on Business Ethics." Annual Editions: Business Ethics Winter 2005, Vol. 18, No. 3: 9-10.
Singer, Andrew. "The Perils of Doing the Right Thing." Annual Editions: Business Ethics October 2000, Vol. 18, No. 32: 140-144.
Vogl, A.J. "Does it Pay to be Good?" Annual Editions: Business Ethics January 2003, Vol. 18, No. 22: 92-97.
Many government and corporate policies have been created in order to keep businesses acting ethically. Officials believe that by informing business leaders and employees about "how to act ethically" it can prevent scandalous unethical behavior from occurring. This informative approach has been around for many years, as written in an article by James O'Toole. He writes that even Aristotle had put forth this information way before big business was created. I personally do not believe an informative approach is strong enough to prevent this behavior. One must also look at the cost that a business must incur to inform all of its employees of how to act ethically. There are many classes to be taken, and it also may become difficult to force employees to take this information seriously. Another idea proposed was to create systems for those who have noticed unethical behavior to report it. Officials believed this would help to stop unethically behavior, and also help to scare people away from acting unethically. Although this approach sounds great, there are some holes found that kind of prevent it from working correctly. First, it may become almost impossible to get people to come forth. Most people will not "tattle" on those they must continue to work with everyday. Some may even quit their jobs after they blow the whistle, worried that one day someone they told on might find out. (Whistleblower refers to those telling on people who acted unethically.) Although ideas are getting better on how to instill values and morals into business people, at this current time it is impossible to have an ethical business world.
O'Toole, James. "Advice from Aristotle on Business Ethics." Annual Editions: Business Ethics Winter 2005, Vol. 18, No. 3: 9-10.
Singer, Andrew. "The Perils of Doing the Right Thing." Annual Editions: Business Ethics October 2000, Vol. 18, No. 32: 140-144.
Vogl, A.J. "Does it Pay to be Good?" Annual Editions: Business Ethics January 2003, Vol. 18, No. 22: 92-97.
Many government and corporate policies have been created in order to keep businesses acting ethically. Officials believe that by informing business leaders and employees about "how to act ethically" it can prevent scandalous unethical behavior from occurring. This informative approach has been around for many years, as written in an article by James O'Toole. He writes that even Aristotle had put forth this information way before big business was created. I personally do not believe an informative approach is strong enough to prevent this behavior. One must also look at the cost that a business must incur to inform all of its employees of how to act ethically. There are many classes to be taken, and it also may become difficult to force employees to take this information seriously. Another idea proposed was to create systems for those who have noticed unethical behavior to report it. Officials believed this would help to stop unethically behavior, and also help to scare people away from acting unethically. Although this approach sounds great, there are some holes found that kind of prevent it from working correctly. First, it may become almost impossible to get people to come forth. Most people will not "tattle" on those they must continue to work with everyday. Some may even quit their jobs after they blow the whistle, worried that one day someone they told on might find out. (Whistleblower refers to those telling on people who acted unethically.) Although ideas are getting better on how to instill values and morals into business people, at this current time it is impossible to have an ethical business world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
