Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Chaithu Natarajan

Business Ethics, Miklos


2/19/18

The Ethics of Whistle-blowing

In this reading, Terrance McConnell discusses the ethics of whistle blowing. The

reading is split into 5 main sections, with introductory case examples and a short

conclusion. McConnell’s overarching thesis is that whistle-blowing requires ethical

justification, and exposes the whistle-blower to some degree of risk. He concludes by

asserting that whistle-blowers ought to be protected by the public, and that organizations

should take steps to listen to and fairly evaluate whistle-blowers’ claims.

The first section defines whistle-blowing. Whistle blowing occurs when a

member of a company or organization publically accuses the organization of misconduct

or perceived unethical behavior. There are several facets of and requirements for whistle-

blowing:

First, the whistle-blower must have pertinent insider information about actions

that an organization is taking, such as misconduct during clinical trials for a product.

McConnell uses the example of Cherylnn Mathias, an RN who worked as a coordinator

for clinical trials of a cancer vaccine. Mathias saw that researchers were injecting human

subjects with the untested vaccine without first testing it on animals, then lying about the

benefits of the vaccine and covering up their misconduct. Her medical training,

McConnell asserts, was instrumental in both helping her realize the researchers’ unethical

behavior, as well as identifying her as a credible source once she blew the whistle.
Next, the whistle-blower must have personal morals and values that contradict the

organization’s actions. An employee who mindlessly works in the best interests of the

organization is unlikely to perceive any misconduct, whereas a more inquisitive and

mindful employee is more likely to question the organization’s actions. McConnell says

that whistle-blowing “calls attention to alleged instances of negligence, abuse, or

practices that damage the public interest or harm others”.

Unless the individual makes the confidential information publically known, it

cannot be considered whistle-blowing. Most often, whistle-blowers will turn to news

media, including TV stations, magazines, and newspapers. However, there are many

alternatives, such as Henry Beecher’s article in a medical journal detailing the accounts

of twenty-two human subjects involved in various unethical studies.

McConnell discusses taking responsibility as the whistle-blower as a central tenet

of whistle-blowing, and juxtaposes it with “leaking” information to differentiate the two.

During the Nixon administration, an anonymous informant nicknamed “Deep Throat”

leaked information about the administration’s unethical behavior; however, since the

informant only revealed minimal information at a time, and since they never publically

identified themselves, the attempt to whistle-blow failed.

McConnell also identifies the typical whistle-blower as powerless to end the

“harmful practices within the organization’s structure” (McConnell). He writes that

whistle-blowers typically are backed into a corner with no other options, since their

organization has failed to acknowledge or address their concerns.

Finally, whistle-blowing is a serious action that affects multiple entities, most

obvious of which is the organization. However, McConnell warns, it also adversely


affects the employees involved in the misconduct, clients, and most importantly, the

whistle-blower themselves. Multiple conflicts of interest mean that the individual needs

to weigh the importance of revealing private information against the potential backlash

they face.

The next section addresses the ethics of whistle-blowing, framing it as an

intersection between role-related obligations and general obligations. Role-related

obligations are moral requirements that an individual faces due to the nature of their job

or role within the organization. General obligations, in contrast, are basic requirements

that any individual with a moral compass must follow; these can include “not to kill, not

to steal, and not to assault others” (McConnell). The difference between these two sets of

obligations is pertinent in the case of whistle-blowing, since the whistle-blower’s role-

related obligations dictate that they act in the best interests of the organization, whereas

their general obligations state that they protect people from further harm. McConnell

writes that instead of a ‘structural answer’ where individuals always prioritize one set of

obligations over the other, they should follow a more general ethical perspective and

determine the most appropriate response on a case-by-case basis. He calls this a “future-

oriented view of rightness” (McConnell). The general idea of a future-oriented approach

is that whistle-blowing should only occur if it will end the organization’s current

unethical actions. Sissela Bok augments this idea, writing that “past errors or misdeeds”

should only be acknowledged if their effects linger currently. McConnell’s approach to

this idea, however, expands beyond just the organization’s actions, and examines the idea

of reparations for those harmed by the organization. He states that victims of malpractice

and their heirs are owed amends, and that if the organization is unwilling to pay those
reparations, whistle-blowing is warranted. He also says that “exposing a past injustice can

open people’s eyes to similar injustices” and keep them more informed, thereby

preventing a repeat of those actions.

The individual needs to consider whether whistle-blowing is both permissible and

obligatory. Whistle-blowing is considered permissible if, despite the tarnished reputation

of the organization and backlash on the whistle-blower, the act produces “significant

good (or prevent significant harm)” (McConnell). Permissibility is also determined by

how sure the individual is of their assessment, as well as an estimate of the damage that

their action will cause the organization. Examining whether the act is obligatory,

however, requires an understanding that the whistle-blower will and historically does face

significant punishment for their action. McConnell writes that “…whistle-blowers often

do not fare well. Some have been fired and others have been demoted or reassigned to far

less desirable positions” (McConnell). Whistle-blowing can fall into a category ethicists

label “supererogatory”, which means that although the act would be morally good, the

individual would not be blamed if they realized that the cost they incur is far greater than

the benefits reaped by whistle-blowing.

Organizations that wish to remain ethical need, broadly, three aspects. The first is

to promote policies and an internal structure that allows employees to not only openly

discuss their qualms with the ethics of the org’s actions, but to also be seriously heard.

The second is a commitment to protecting the employee from punishment should they

whistle-blow. Finally, organizations need to constantly reassess their actions and ensure

that they are in line with general ethical principles.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai