Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Are you a good notes-taker? Looking for a collaborator: e-mail me at sampson.chen@gmail.

com

PHIL 215
Lecture #5
Today:

Structure of the Mid-Term:


1. Define & Explain the Significance: 3 of 5-6; 10% each => 30% a) Want 2 paragraphs b) 1st paragraph: Define (e.g. define the case of the insider: factual information, key players, events, outcome) c) 2nd paragraph: Explain to business / professional ethics. It would be relevant to talk about, for example, conflict of interest (amongst a number of ethical points of interest). 2. Reflective Topic Essay: 1 or 2-3; 20% a) Sample Question: Bayles constructed 4 models for understanding the relationship between professional & client. Explain these models in detail, and note their strengths and weaknesses, using concrete examples. Bayles argued in favour of the superiority of one model in particular: which was it; why was that; and do you agree: why or why not? 3. Case Study, using our Method: 1 of 2; 50% a) Rule of thumb on length: Fully answer the question: word / paragraph count is not relevant (But perhaps 3-4 sides of a page, single spaced) b) Refer to the handout on case study method to prepare for this portion of the exam. Other Misc Info: - Office Hours: Mon, 3:45 - 5:15 PM, HH 327 - bdorend@uwaterloo.ca - *Please remain outside classroom until exam start @ 7 PM* - Exam length: 2h30m - Nothing from textbooks - Focus on lecture content - Understand & apply the case study method. - Exam graded by TAs based on detailed grading key. - May take some time for exam to be graded due to nature of the exam - Final Exam will be graded by Prof. Orend - Prof. Orend: Will try to be a generous grader, but will take it seriously

- Best performance gets best grade, worst performance gets worst grade. (Ranked grading scheme)

Whistle-Blowing (continued from previous lecture):


- Boisjoly: Challenger Shuttle Explosion - Wigand: Tobacco Whistle-Blower

Nancy Olivieri & APOTEX


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Fern_Olivieri http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255 - M.D. Ph.D. - Pediatrician (Doctor for children) - U of T professor - APOTEX offers her a research contract to study a new liver treatment drug on children - Part of the contract says that she cannot blow the whistle if tests go poorly because it is a confidential test. - The test does go badly (very badly, in fact) - The drug DXL was tested on 1,000 kids. 3 months later, the majority of kids fall sick, many seriously - some have liver failure and some die. - Nancy cancels the test on her own accord. - She also writes a letter to all parents of kids, detailing the test results. (active act of whistleblowing) - She tells APOTEX nothing. - When this news hit the frontpage of newspapers, APOTEX loses 40-50% of stock value. - APOTEX sues Nancy for breach of contract. - These particular circumstances build a perfect media storm (Evil corporation run by rich old men vs. pretty + brilliant young female doctor who wants to save kids) - APOTEX pressured Sick Kids Hospital + U of T into firing Nancy and also attempted to strip her of her medical license through CMA. - Nancys stated rationale for her actions: I did not trust APOTEX to do the right thing. - The public, however, stood firmly on Nancys side and contributed toward a large fund for her. She hired lawyers against APOTEX, but the trials were stalled and buried. - U of T eventually hired her back as a researcher.

New Protections in the past 15 years for Whistle Blowers:


1. Now illegal to fire anyone for whilstle blowing (in Canada and USA). 2. More sympathetic coverage of whistle-blowers (e.g. in media). Social recognition as heros instead of disloyal betrayers.

3. Professions: a) Whistle-blower fund: defray lost wages, legal costs b) Whistle-blower hot-lines. Professional Engineers of Ontario (P.E.O.) gets 12-25 calls a month. (Aside: how can illegal things make it into a contract? Answer: there is the law (threat), and then the LAW (what a judge decides + what you will get arrested for)).

DeGeorges Criteria for Whistle-Blowing:


Permissible if: 1. One seeks to prevent serious harm 2. One informs ones superior, to no effect. 3. One exhausts all internal appeals, to no effect. Obligatory if 1-3 +: 4. One has evidence of potential harm 5. Probability of success that whistle-blowing will prevent the harm James: 4, 5 too stringent + partly out of ones control. Permissible if 1-3; Mandatory if harm is serious enough.

James Kinds of Whistle-Blowing:


A. Internal (Whistle-blowing to within your company) vs. External B. Personal (e.g. sexual harassment) vs. Impersonal C. Open (Whistle-blower reveals their identity) vs. Anonymous (safer, but credibility issues) D. Current vs. Alumni (Alumni whistle-blowing suffers from credibility issues) (DeGeorges is more influential; James is more efficient.)

Critique of the case study method: lack of concern regarding the economy.

The Corporation
- Note: Take this film with a grain of salt; it is admittedly very critical of captialism (The film: http://archive.org/details/The_Corporation_) http://www.thecorporation.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film) Take away for the film: 1. Corporation is a legal person. 2. But what kind of a person is it? (Damaging / Psychotic)

(EOF)

S-ar putea să vă placă și