Assignment 5 ETHICS & HEALTH PROMOTION 1. Define ethics and note why it is important to act ethically .

Ethics is the study of morality or more simply put the study of right and wrong. Looking a little deeper, ethics is judgment on an issue and the science of how choices are made. Ethics are important because they are a standard or a code to live by that not only brings peace and happiness to your own life but to those with whom you come in contact. Ethics are a benefit to an individual and society that is why it is important for anyone to act ethically.

2. Select one of the four scenarios on pp. 168-169

I selected scenario 1: Step 1: define the problem, The problem with this scenario is that my supervisor has been dishonest and is asking me to be dishonest. The misappropriation of funds that he has been guilty of is a fancy way of saying he is stealing and has been lying to keep from getting in trouble. It also appears the supervisor has not been as diligent in developing and presenting programs as required by the guidelines. The main problem I see here is that my supervisor is asking me to help cover up his dishonest behavior so that the funding will continue and he wont get in trouble. I am not sure if he even cares about the priority group involved due to his poor work performance. Step 2: Identify who will be affected, There are many people who will be affected based on the decision I make. Those people include: my supervisor, myself, the city health department, the funding foundation, and the persons in the priority groups. My supervisor may face being fired and legal ramifications if I do not protect him. He also may continue to be dishonest if I do. My relationship with my supervisor will never be the same not matter what I do. I may jeopardize my standing with the health department, funding foundations and the persons from the priority groups if I do take action against my supervisor or not. If I do not report my supervisor and the health department finds out I will probably lose my job. If I tell the health department what is going on they may look at me different as well, this could affect

my future advancement in the department positively or negatively. I would certainly say that the funding foundation would be displeased about the whole issue. The funding foundation, knowing what the supervisor has done, may cause the funds to stop completely or cut them down. On the other hand, this could also be positive in the light that the funding foundation may demand the supervisor be replaced. This could give me peace of mind that I did the right thing and may give me the opportunity to move up. The priority groups are the ones who have taken the brunt of the supervisors negligence, by not receiving the appropriate number of presentations, and may incur more hardship if the funding is cut. If a new supervisor is put in and the funding continues this could be a great improvement for the priority group. Step 3: contemplate goals and ideals, The first theory that comes to mind for this dilemma, is the deontological theory. The end does not justify the means in this situation. I have been asked to break a principle that is one of my core beliefs, honesty. I know that my honesty might result in the funding being cut for this program, but I feel that it is my moral obligation to be honest. This is a scenario that the supervisor should have thought through before he decided to be dishonest and ask someone to join his dishonest endeavors. In the end lying is wrong and no matter how you skin this cat it is better to get the truth out now before it causes more problems down the road. Aside from the honesty principle I also think the justice principle comes into play as well. The supervisor is not considering what can come out of this for me and all the other stakeholders. He only cares about the bottom line that the grant proposal figures agree with his figures. This is simply not fair and he is asking me to bare his burden for him. I can see how nonmaleficence could be a noble standpoint for this scenario with the priority group in mind. I feel that beneficence wins out when you see the pros and cons. It isnt worth losing your job and credibility to lie to protect a dishonest supervisor and keep a half rate program alive. I am a person who is firm on integrity and it would be very hard for me to compromise my integrity for someone else. Step 4: Identify alternatives: I see that I have three main options to choose from. They are: 1. Write the report with the true, correct numbers and submit it. In essence, notify higher authority of my supervisors dishonest ways. Who would be involved? : All the stakeholders, my supervisor, myself, the city health department, the funding foundation, and the persons in the priority groups. Benefits: keep the funding, rid ourselves of a poor supervisor and strengthen relations with the funding foundation, improve the presentations and number of programs created and given. Risks: we loose funding, the priority group gets no presentations or programs, supervisor loses his job and I am looked upon poorly for being a whistle blower.

2. Write the report with the fudged values. Who would be involved? : All the stakeholders, my supervisor, myself, the city health department, the funding foundation, and the persons in the priority groups. Benefits: supervisor keeps his job; priority group continues to get some programs and presentations. Things stay the same. Risks: I feel horribly guilt for life, funding foundation finds out any way and I lose my job along with the supervisor, I have a bad reputation and serve time in jail, 3. Tell my supervisor that I will not write the report if it is not true and accurate. Who would be involved? : The supervisor and myself, it would be up to the supervisor who he would want to get involved at that point. Benefits: I can alleviate myself of the burden of having to cover up my supervisors lies and becoming an accomplice, I place the decision back on the supervisor, I am not a whistle blower, supervisor may get a conscious and rectify his wrongs. Risks: supervisor fires me for not performing my duties, I would have to protest this because of what he had asked me to do, higher authorities would get involved and could be a real mess, supervisor does nothing to change and submits the report fudged, supervisor gets caught anyway and drags me down with him for not reporting it, program still loses funding and priority group loses the program. Step 5: consider the consequences of each alternative: 1. Write the report with the true, correct numbers and submit it. In essence notify higher authority of my supervisors dishonest ways. Probable outcome: I truly believe that the probable outcome of this action would result in the supervisor getting fired and facing legal action. I believe that I would fair just fine for taking the high road of ethical standards. I also think that the funding would continue and more support would be focused on the program because of the injustices done to the program. Most importantly I believe that the priority group would receive a better program all together. 2. Write the report with the fudged values. Probable outcome: I believe that the program and presentations would continue the way described in the scenario, subpar, and eventually the supervisor and I would be caught and fired and face legal action. 3. Tell my supervisor that I will not write the report if it is not true and accurate. Probable outcome: I believe that the supervisor would try to get rid of me through, firing, or transferring to another project to protect himself from being discovered. I dont think the supervisor is ready to face the consequences of his actions. I would have to end up telling someone of higher authority if I were transferred or fired to

make sure justice was served to the supervisor.

Step 6: consider the nature of the alternatives: Alternative 1. Write the report with the true, correct numbers and submit it. In essence, notify higher authority of my supervisors dishonest ways. The deontology theory applies to my first alternative. Falsifying paper work is wrong and cannot be justified. I think with this option I maintain my integrity and honesty and remain committed to the cause of the program even though my actions my make the program suffer. I feel like this is for the greater good of the people even though at first it may not seem that way. Correcting the problem is beneficence at its finest and is the most fair action for all involved. Alternative 2. Write the report with the fudged values. Alternative 2 would represent more of a teleological theory. My falsifying of documents would be justified to keep the program funded and the priority group would still get their needed programs and presentations. This alternative could take on a compassion appearance as a value that would motivate someone to do this. It also embodies the principle of utilitarianism, that the priority groups needs are greater than mine. I also think that nonmaleficence could be justified here as well, if my intent in fudging the numbers was so that no harm would come upon any of the stakeholders. Alternative 3. Tell my supervisor that I will not write the report if it is not true and accurate. I think that alternative 3 also is of the deontology theory. Even though I would not out right turn in my supervisor for his actions I would just refuse to participate because lying is wrong. Number 3 aligns much with alternative 1, with the values of honesty integrity and the principle of beneficence. There is a sense of the value respect with this option more than the others. I can still hold respect for my supervisors position by not ratting him out to the authorities. This option gives him an opportunity to make his wrongs right on his own. It also shows respect for the programs and the priority groups involved. It is a less rash decision and equally shows compassion for the supervisor and priority group.

Step 7: reflect on yourself: I could not live with myself if I went ahead and fudged the documents. The guilt of helping someone lie to that extent would not be something I would forget anytime soon. I feel that fudging the paper work would have a much worse out come for

everyone involved and is not a decision I could live with. Step 8: reflect on your environment: Alternative 1: I think most people would see this alternative as the boldest move and would take a lot of guts to actually do. I think an over whelming majority would admire someone for caring out this action but would probably not do it themselves. Alternative 2: society would look upon you as lacking integrity and ethical values. The vast majority of people would not support this type of behavior. Alternative 3: I think most people would end up carrying out this alternative. It seems to be less confrontational and could still have a good outcome for all. Step 9: apply the categorical imperative: I would want my course of action to inspire others to stand up against unethical practices and would be happy to know others are following the example I set. I still think that most people would choose alternative 3 in this situation and try to resolve the dilemma in the least confrontational manner as possible. Step 10: choose and act: I would choose to write the report with the true, correct numbers and submit it. In essence, notify higher authority of my supervisors dishonest ways. I think this action is choosing to act in the most courageous way possible; I would have no regrets doing this. As the deontological theory states, the end does not justify the means. To rationalize dishonest actions such as this with the intention to do the greater good is a lie to yourself and enables some else to continue to be dishonest and take you down with them. I will maintain my integrity, honesty, and see that justice is served. This is the action I would expect anyone else to make so I would do the same. I think alternative 1 has the most potential to better for everyone. If all goes as planned, the supervisor would be served justice, I could live with no guilt, the programs and presentations would be better than ever, and the priority group would thrive to an unprecedented level.