Category: Ethical Dilemma

Healthcare professionals are obligated to avail care to ailing patients by minimizing any form of suffering as well as alleviating pain. Because of this, every action taken by healthcare personnel or physician constitutes both a moral and ethical dimension. These dimensions are supposed to be in alignment with a set of ethical principles that aim at enhancing the quality of care. The ethical principles also play a significant role in the identification as well as the attempt to resolve issues arising from healthcare practice. Even with these ethical and moral dimensions in place, there are rampant cases of unethical behavior such as abuse of patients, unsafe administration of medication for patients, and isolation of patients. This essay looks deep into an unethical issue where nurses conceal a patent’s prognosis.

Core Values of Nursing

In healthcare, ethical issues are addressed using four principles of ethics. According to Punjani et al. (2014), these principles of ethics include autonomy, non-maleficence, justice, and beneficence. In some of the issues mentioned above, for instance, abuse, these principles of ethics guide how nurses should conduct themselves and how they should respond to a scenario. Typically, the nursing curriculum demands nurses to tell the truth and be honest in all circumstances (Punjani et al., 2014). Being orderly is far from being a subject of discussion. Therefore, in a case where nurses or any other healthcare professional has issues with alcohol, they are either dismissed or taken to custody for putting the life of patients at risk. In essence, the core values, as well as the ideology of nursing, include honesty and trustworthiness. The next section discusses the ethical principles of nursing that should be considered in nursing practice, more so when nurses are in a dilemma of concealing information from patients.

Nursing Principles of Ethics

Autonomy

The principle of autonomy addresses issues concerning obligations and rights. The principle emphasizes the patient’s rights that should be taken into account when treating their medical conditions (Edwards, 2009). In some cases, nurses are tempted to withhold critical information to a patient. Therefore, the patients can end up making an uninformed decision concerning their wellbeing because they do not have all the information needed. A similar scenario can also take place when healthcare workers hide prognosis from patients. Concealing critical data from a patient is an unethical issue that can be resolved using the principle of autonomy.

Per the principle of autonomy, healthcare givers must be truthful to the patients. They should also respect the choices made by the patients. According to Edwards (2009), patients have the right to make decisions for themselves concerning the type of treatment plan to be used. However, the nurses are obligated to allow this on condition that they have availed complete information to the patient. The data provided should be accurate and comprehensive (Edwards, 2009). Therefore, in a case where the caregiver has been asked by family members not to give prognosis details to the patient and yields to family members’ pressure, violates the ethical principle of autonomy.

Beneficence and Non-maleficence

The primary responsibility of nurses or any other caregiver is to the patient. At times, the family or community can take the place of the patient. When such a scenario occurs, where the family may decide to hide the patient’s prognosis, what arises again is the intentions behind such concealment. If the intentions are wrong, then the interests of the family are disregarded. When the stakes are good, beneficence and non-maleficence principles apply. According to Scott (2017), the principle of beneficence demands caregivers to treat patients in a manner that provides maximum outcome and benefit to the patient. On the other hand, the principle of non-maleficence demands that no harm should be caused to the patient (Scott, 2017). This suggests that caregivers are obligated with the duty of taking care of their patients, which is in alignment with utilitarianism theory.

According to Scott (2017), utilitarianism theory suggests that ethical actions are those that provide the best good for the most significant number of people. In a healthcare setting, utilitarianism theory suggests that ethical actions are those that result in the maximum outcome and minimized risks and costs (Scott, 2017). From this analysis, it is evident that beneficence and non-maleficence principles go hand in hand. However, exceptional circumstances arise when they override. For example, in the case where the prognosis is hidden from the patient, the interests of the family members may be pure, which in most cases is to protect the psychological wellbeing of the patient. However, when a nurse does this, and the patient finds out later, the caregiver loses the trust of the patient. The patient may also result in mental and psychological trauma, which can be fatal. In such a scenario, the beneficence principle holds. At the same time, the probability of non-maleficence is high.

The conflict between Beneficence and Autonomy

The two principles conflict in cases where healthcare professionals unintentionally or intentionally utilize the paternalistic approach when taking care of a patient. Even though such care may be useful to the patient, the principle of autonomy is breached. That is, the decision of the patient is not put into consideration (Bhanji, 2013). Therefore, when such circumstances happen, healthcare professionals are advised to analyze the situation critically. Benefits, as well as risks about the case should be considered. In essence, the entire situation should be examined critically and, more so, the consequences.

Justice

Justice suggests fairness and equality. However, this is not the case in healthcare. According to Bhanji (2013), justice in healthcare suggests that resources are equitably distributed. Bhanji (2013) further indicates that there are two types of justice in the healthcare context, which include rights-based justice and distributive justice. The former suggests respecting the rights of patients rather than the law (Bhanji, 2013). Therefore, in a healthcare setting, patients have equal rights in participating in the plan of care as well as in seeking healthcare. In the scenario discussed in this essay, concealing prognosis data and the transfer of data to family members without the consent of the patient is a breach of rights-based justice. Therefore, with the many ethical issues surrounding healthcare, these principles of ethics help nurses make ethical decisions in circumstances of dilemma.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the essay has looked deep into an unethical issue where nurses conceal a patent’s prognosis among other data. The paper has shown that nurses can hide information from patients, which is unethical. Such situation can only be solved using principles of ethics, which include autonomy, non-maleficence, justice, and beneficence. In essence, there is no perfect way to solve an ethical dilemma. However, the principles of ethics help one make step by step decisions in determining the best outcome.

References

1. Bhanji, S. M. (2013). Health care ethics. Journal of Clinical Research Bioethics, 4(1), 141-142.
2. Edwards, S. D. (2009). Nursing Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Punjani, N. S., Bhanji, S. M., Mehgani, S. T., & Shah, M. (2014). Health care Ethics-Am I Dying. International Journal of Endorsing Health Science Research, 2(1), 28-30.
4. Scott, P. A. (2017). Key concepts and issues in nursing ethics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Introduction to Euthanasia and Ethical Dilemmas

Today, there are various opinions on what should be considered ethical and/or unethical. At an early age, many people learn the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, but we all tend to develop our own ideas of why something is right or wrong and/or good or bad. Although we learn these concepts early in life and develop our own opinions rather quickly, there are some situations in life that may cause individuals to feel morally conflicted. So how about a question that you were probably never asked as a child? Should a terminally ill person be able to decide how they want to leave this world? On one hand, you have the law which strictly forbids doctors from performing euthanasia, and on the other, you have people who are suffering from debilitating, crippling, terminal diseases with no chance of recovery. These patients are often in pain, incapacitated, and live in a hospital. The dilemma is, should these individuals be able to leave this world on their own terms or be forced to let their disease run its course until they pass?

Euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide has several benefits for those who are terminally ill. While standing on death’s doorstep, you start to think about the things you still have in your control, and the right to end your suffering should be one of them. The freedom to choose, an end to suffering, and dying with dignity, are all things that terminally ill patients should be offered. Until we are put in a position of no hope to recovery, how can we decide what is best, having never been in a similar situation?

Historical Perspective and Evolution of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is defined as, “… the act, undertaken only by a physician, that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or her request” (Pereira, J.). Many of those who fall victim to a terminal illness feel as if they have no control over what is happening to their body; though being in control and having a choice is something many patients desire. The option of euthanasia gives terminally ill patients a choice; it puts them in control. However, the ethical dilemma of using euthanasia for the terminally ill has been around since the premodern era, and still to this day individuals fail to come to a consensus on the issue. Historically, moral theorists believed that individuals had a duty to themselves; one implication of this duty was preserving life. Euthanasia, however, would have violated this particular duty, and therefore, it was condemned as an immoral act in the premodern era (Meriwether, Nicholas K.). In addition, the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, believed that “… to commit suicide is to do oneself an injustice” (Papadimitriou, John D, et al.). It is believed that Aristotle felt this way, not because of his concern for ethics, but due to his concern for the ethical implications of the law. Aristotle believed that taking one’s life was unjustifiable because it went against what the law considered to be ethical behavior (Papadimitriou, John D, et al.). Here, one may ask why the law can dictate how a terminally ill patient will die? If someone is medically diagnosed with a death sentence, why are they expected to suffer until their body gives in to the inevitable? Today, the concept of euthanasia is still a conflict of interest, however, it is seen differently now than in premodern times. In the ever-evolving modern era, euthanasia is seen more as a means to end suffering. Nowadays the practice of, “. . . voluntary euthanasia and/or doctor-assisted suicide is legally available in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and in six US States (California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington State)” (“Assisted Dying in Other Countries.”).

Philosophical Views and Ethical Theories on Euthanasia

In the world of practical ethics, individuals seem to agree when it comes to the idea of what is right or wrong, however, people tend to disagree when it comes to the application of ethical ideas. Euthanasia has always been a controversial topic and with regard to this the premodern philosopher, known as Aristotle, did not agree with the concept of this practice. Kant on the other hand held a conflicting perspective. Though he believed that any request for suicide disrespected a person’s rational or decision-making abilities, he also believed that an individual’s dignity must be respected. Therefore, if a person’s rational abilities were going to be compromised by an illness, which was to impede one’s dignity, then a request for euthanasia was permissible (Lacewing, Michael.). “We respect and protect their dignity by helping them die in circumstances of their own choosing” (Lacewing, Michael.). Furthermore, the ideas of utilitarianism and the right to autonomy bring forth different perspectives. Utilitarianism is defined as, “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people” (“Utilitarianism.”). According to Jeremey Bentham, utilitarian behavior lies in that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Meriwether, Nicholas K.). In other words, Bentham believed that as long as a particular action created more happiness than unhappiness, the action was morally acceptable (Meriwether, Nicholas K.). Based on the standpoint of Kant, Bentham, and the modern application of utilitarianism, euthanasia should be considered ethically permissible. This practice would allow death with dignity as well as promote the greatest happiness by giving terminally ill patients the freedom to choose how they leave this world.

The Right to Autonomy and Legal Considerations

In addition to the utilitarian standpoint, the right to autonomy is another example of why physician-assisted suicide should be legally and morally permissible. Autonomy is defined as, “self-directing freedom and especially moral independence” (“Autonomy.”). In regard to this definition, as long as the terminally ill patient is capable of making cognitive decisions, they should have the right to decide how they want to leave this world freely. “Euthanasia is an expression of autonomy – that a competent individual should have the right to make self-governing choices, especially in the face of increasing support for euthanasia in public opinion polls” (“The Ethical Dilemmas of Euthanasia.”). An individual’s right to autonomy should be respected, therefore, the option of physician-assisted suicide should be legalized worldwide for the terminally ill. An individual’s death is a personal matter and therefore the choice should be up to the patient, not the law.

Arguments Against Euthanasia and Ethical Concerns

Although the practice of euthanasia appears to be accepted more now, than in premodern times, there are still arguments against this practice. Two common arguments opposing its use include disputes about the effects of mental disease on rational thinking and the availability of end-of-life care (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). Those who oppose the use of physician-assisted suicide due to the possibility of mental illness argue that requesting euthanasia is a symptom of the psychological disease (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). People argue, “Attempts to suicide or completed suicide are commonly seen in patients suffering from depression, schizophrenia, and substance users” (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). Those who hold this view seem to believe that when a terminally ill patient requests for a physician to terminate their life, they are suffering from a mental illness including but not limited to depression, and this disease is influencing the patient’s decision-making abilities (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). These individuals may believe that if the patient was in a competent state of mind, they would not make such a request. In addition to this view, people also argue that if the notion of dying with dignity was stressed, the practice of euthanasia would potentially be used as a way to remove the terminally ill from the population (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). According to the article, this is referred to as, “Eliminating the invalid…” (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). These individuals believe that palliative care and/or end-of-life care is all that terminally ill patients need in their last days, as this type of care provides comfort to the patient for the remainder of their life (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). When it comes to the concept of practical ethics, there will always be those who support the topic and those who oppose it. However, in particular discrepancies, the ultimate decision should be up to those who are physically affected by the issue.

Balancing Ethical Dilemmas and the Future of Euthanasia

Opposing views and possible downfalls of euthanasia are not something that should be ignored, though, they should be discussed at length and weighed against the possible benefits of the practice. When it comes to any health issue, especially terminal illnesses, psychological disorders such as depression can indeed affect a patient. This is why testing a patient’s competency level when it comes to medical decisions is of great importance. According to research, one of the most common tests for patient competency in regard to physician-assisted suicide was developed by Grisso and Appelbaum; it is known as the Macarthur Competency Assessment Tool for Treatment (Stewart, Cameron, et al.). This specific test measures a patient’s ability to communicate their choice, factual understanding of the issues, appreciation of their situation and the consequences, and ability to rationally manipulate the information (Stewart, Cameron, et al.). Though such tests are typically contexted specific, not diagnosis-specific, they do not consider brain damage or mental illnesses to determine a patient’s level of competence or decision-making ability. It is extremely important to determine a patient’s ability to understand their health status and all possible treatment options so that they can make informed medical decisions (Stewart, Cameron, et al.). Depression can affect anyone, terminal illness or not, and this should not hinder a patient’s right to self-government as long as they are capable of making sound medical decisions.

In regard to those who argue that end-of-life and/or palliative care is available for those who suffer from incurable illnesses, this is indeed an option, but it should not be the only option. Palliative care is used in hopes to better a patient’s quality of life during their final days. This type of care is used to relieve stresses as well as pain associated with the illness (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). However, what if a terminally ill patient doesn’t want to live this way for the remainder of their life, and they refuse care? According to research, a patient has the right to refuse care, which is recognized by law (Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K Chaturvedi.). If this is the case, why isn’t a patient’s request for life terminating services well recognized? The right to autonomy is a big factor here; how can we force someone to live out the remainder of their life in a manner that goes against their wants and wishes? The right to euthanasia should be an option for the terminally ill, as this medical service allows patients to take control of their illness and decide how they wish to handle their diagnosis.

In the world today, individuals typically agree when it comes to the idea of what is right or wrong, however, people tend to disagree when it comes to the application of ethical ideas. Euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide has always been an extremely controversial topic, hence, there have always been conflicting opinions. Arguments for this practice have typically revolved around the modern ideas of utilitarianism and autonomy, though some still oppose these views. Individuals who oppose the issue argue that psychological diseases can affect an individual’s decision-making abilities. In addition to this, they also argue that euthanasia could potentially remove the terminally ill from our population and therefore palliative care is a better option. To counter this, those in favor of the practice argue that as long as a patient is mentally competent to make sound medical decisions the choice should be up to them, as they have the right to practice autonomy. Additionally, people in favor argue that though palliative care is an option for those who fall victim to a terminal illness, this service should not be the only option. People want a choice; they want to be in control of their illness versus it being in control of them. Legalizing the use of euthanasia does not mean that if someone falls victim to a terminal illness this is the only option they have; it just offers those who seek other options an alternative rather than being forced to let the disease run its course. Although physician-assisted suicide is not legalized worldwide, this practice is becoming more popular in today’s world. The terminally ill should be offered the freedom to choose, an end to suffering, and dying with dignity.

As medical science advances, and our ability to keep people alive improves, we increasingly find people reaching the last stages of their life, or surviving in conditions that would have proved fatal in the past. However, in many of these cases, people are going through physical and emotional suffering that can cause their lives to become very difficult. In an attempt to relieve this suffering, some people seek euthanasia. This can provide people with a controlled way to end their lives, ensuring their last moments are dignified and peaceful, and allowing them to escape the suffering they were forced to endure. While some advocate for this practice, others say that it is immoral, and suggest an increased focus on palliative care to support those facing these problems. Exploration of this issue finds that ultimately, while there appears to be an increasing role for euthanasia in the modern world, the definitive determination of euthanasia’s place in society will require much more research and discussion of the core issues which it raises.

Introduction

Euthanasia is defined as “the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering”. People seek euthanasia as it provides a solution to problems that many views as insurmountable; more specifically to deal with “unbearable” suffering that may arise in life, and or death. While euthanasia deals with this suffering, it is an extreme solution, and one which raises many issues: is euthanasia the optimal way to deal with the issues that people are facing? Is it a moral course of action? Is it compatible with the culture of modern-day society? Ultimately the place of euthanasia in healthcare comes down to the answers to these questions.

Is Euthanasia a Solution to Poor Quality of Life?

One of the primary reasons individuals seek euthanasia is because they feel they are experiencing poor quality of life. In the throes of serious illness or in the final stages of life there are lots of factors that can cause an individual’s quality of life to decline. Many people’s suffering comes from a physical deterioration associated with their condition. This can manifest itself as pain, a loss of normal abilities, or as other symptoms (such as breathlessness, nausea, or fatigue). Suffering can also come from losing purpose in life, which can come from a loss of dignity, an increased dependency on others, and loneliness. This is not an exhaustive assessment of the reasons people perceive themselves to have a reduced quality of life. However, the key point is that this perception exists and that many people also believe there is no chance of their situation improving. This leaves people with a sense of hopelessness, which is often a driving factor in the decision to seek euthanasia.

While euthanasia can therefore offer a solution to the relief of suffering in this situation, it may be more appropriate to try and address the suffering itself. Through palliative care, the wants and needs of an individual can be identified, and a care plan can be put into place to work towards these. This can involve working towards the relief of physical suffering, as well as bringing meaning back to an individual’s life by helping them live in the way that they want to. Through this approach, it could be possible to improve the quality of peoples’ lives in situations where they thought that to be impossible, which is a preferable approach to relieve suffering than euthanasia is. This is supported by studies showing that patients’ wishes to seek euthanasia changed when they had appropriate pain management.

However, a systematic review conducted by the BMJ found that the evidence on the benefits provided by palliative care was either inconclusive or suggested only modest benefits. Furthermore, the treatment provided in palliative care can cause its own issues, and another study found that some people found the side effects intolerable. It should therefore be recognized that while palliative care offers an alternative way to deal with suffering and improve the quality of peoples’ lives, it will not necessarily relieve all of the problems faced by those who seek euthanasia.

Does Euthanasia Offer the Best Quality of Death?

Another reason people seek euthanasia is to have a good quality of death. The idea of a good quality of death can mean different things to different people. For some, it refers to a desire to control the circumstances of their death, and in one qualitative study a terminally ill patient is quoted as saying “We should all have the right to choose when we die and how we die”. There are numerous reasons people may wish to have this control; qualitative research has revealed that many people do not wish to be a burden on their family as they become increasingly dependent, while others simply wanted to be able to spend their last moments with their loved ones while they were still themselves, rather than reaching a stage where they would be physically and cognitively impaired. For many individuals, the good quality of death refers to death free of pain. Through discussions with those who are terminally ill, it was found that a large motivation for seeking euthanasia was to avoid a painful death.

Again it is important to consider the ability of palliative care to achieve a good death as an alternative to euthanasia. As a patient approaches their last moments the role of palliative care is to provide a peaceful, pain-free death. Research shows that pain management towards the end of life can be effective at controlling pain, with relatives of cancer patients reporting that pain toward the end of life was completely controlled. In cases where physical symptoms do not respond to treatment, continuous sedation can be employed. This involves reducing the patient’s level of consciousness continuously until the time of death. This can be used as a last resort to control a patient’s symptoms in the last days of their life.

However, it again must be recognized that palliative care is not a perfect solution. The primary issue is that the methods of controlling pain and other physical symptoms can have adverse effects on the patient. One study found that a concern for some individuals is that the treatment required to control their symptoms would impair their cognition. It, therefore, follows that the solutions offered by palliative care would not be useful for those who wish to remain lucid in their final moments of life. Furthermore, research has identified that while some health care professionals feel there is a clear distinction between continuous sedation and euthanasia, for others it is a blurred line. In particular, one physician is quoted as saying “… initiating a euthanasia or a sedation is the same, ethically speaking.”. As one of the major issues surrounding the use of euthanasia is the ethical problems raised by actively ending a person’s life, it is important to consider that the use of continuous sedation raises the same issues for some individuals, meaning it is not necessarily a viable alternative.

Ethical Considerations Regarding Euthanasia

The ethical dilemmas surrounding euthanasia provide a series of arguments for and against its use. The immediate concern lies in the fact that to actively cause death is in direct contradiction to the principles of beneficence (although this is subject to question in cases of patient suffering) and non-maleficence. However, in cases where an individual is either close to death, or has a life that is deemed as not worth living, this could be considered to be less relevant.

This raises the question of what deems a life as not worth living. Some would argue that all life is worthwhile and that there is, therefore, no justification for taking a life. Others would argue that whether a life is worth living is dependent on the circumstances of the individual, such as in cases of unbearable suffering where there is no hope of improvement. However, cases also exist where an individual may feel this way, but it is not necessarily true; such as when these feelings are due to depression, or when these feelings exist but there is a legitimate chance of an improvement in quality of life. It therefore must be established whether a patient’s view of life as worthwhile can be restored, or whether their view of life as not worthwhile can be trusted before it is established if euthanasia is an appropriate course of action. It should also be realized that it is often difficult for healthcare professionals to make this assessment.

An argument in favor of euthanasia is that the ultimate purpose is the relief of suffering. While playing an active role in the death of an individual can be viewed as causing harm, it can also be argued that in cases of extreme suffering the beneficent act is to relieve it. However, if this suffering can be relieved effectively through other methods, such as those offered by palliative care, some may say that this is the more ethical course of action.

Also in support of euthanasia is the idea of maintaining an individual’s autonomy. In order to maintain freedom of choice, it can be argued that people should be given the chance to control the circumstances of their death. However this is directly contradicted by another idea that death itself leads to the end of autonomy as it removes the ability to make any other decisions, and therefore it is ethical to not perform euthanasia, as this preserves a person’s autonomy. Furthermore, autonomy can only be considered to be valuable when a person has the capacity to make decisions. This poses a particular problem in cases where people are seeking euthanasia because, as previously discussed, patients are often facing circumstances that will impair their ability to make decisions in their best interest, such as suffering depression, or feeling like they are a burden on their family. There is the potential that this problem could be circumvented through the assessment of a patient’s capacity before allowing them to make these decisions, although this can be difficult to accurately determine. However, it is important to recognize that even if someone is deemed as not possessing capacity that they still may be going through unbearable suffering. This raises the question as to whether it is ethical to restrict access to euthanasia to these individuals, and whether there should be alternative methods by which these individuals should be able to gain access to it, such as through advanced directives or the appointment of a health care proxy.

Public Acceptability of Euthanasia

Another important consideration when looking at the viability of euthanasia is the impacts the use of euthanasia would have on society. One very important thing to consider is the effect on the public’s trust in the medical profession. Maintaining this trust is crucial, and is even outlined by the GMC as one of the cornerstones of good practice. If the public fear there is the potential for the use of euthanasia to be abused as an option by physicians this trust could be damaged. On the other hand, legislation surrounding the use of euthanasia could ensure there is appropriate regulation of its use, which would prevent this from being a concern.

The public acceptability of euthanasia must also be considered. The opinion of the public varies across different societies due to a complex mix of socioeconomic and cultural factors. General trends between countries have established that support for euthanasia is associated with younger ages, secular views, lower social class, and lower levels of education. Considering this, it should be realized that there is no one size fits all policy regarding euthanasia that would work effectively for every society. For example, the place of euthanasia in the UK – where generally there is widespread public support for its implementation – will be different from a country such as Malta – where there is opposition to the concept of euthanasia.

Healthcare Professionals’ Views on Euthanasia

As well as looking at the views of the public, the stance of healthcare professionals on euthanasia should also be taken into consideration, as they are the people who will be carrying it out. A study of the opinion of UK doctors on euthanasia found that in general, they are opposed to its use, with the strongest opposition coming from specialties that are more involved with end-of-life care, such as palliative medicine or care of the elderly. The views of these specialties are of particular importance, as they are the most likely to understand the needs and the views of those who are in the final stages of life, and therefore the most likely to advocate for their best interests.

These findings fall in line with the trends observed in most countries. This lack of support had numerous contributing factors, such as the need for a focus on palliative care or the religious beliefs of the doctors involved that have already been discussed. In particular, a study by D. Clarke et al. found that many geriatricians opposed euthanasia on the grounds that vulnerable patients may feel a duty to die, a view that is likely formed from their experiences in dealing with elderly patients. However, a new theme that emerged was concerned over the role and obligation of doctors in the provision of euthanasia. It was recognized that there should be an opt-out policy for doctors with objections to the practice, and appropriate safeguards surrounding the delivery of euthanasia to protect both patients and doctors.

The perspective of nurses on euthanasia is harder to establish, as there has not been much research in countries where euthanasia is illegal. It was found that while the situation requires more research, general nurses tend to want to act in a way that is most compassionate for the patient, although this is often difficult to determine, and the doubt about what the right course of action left many nurses with negative feelings. It could be argued therefore that euthanasia has a negative effect on the nurses involved with its delivery. However, a study of nurses in Belgium – where euthanasia is legal – found there was strong support for euthanasia. It was suggested that this support was due to an increased ability to aid the relief of suffering within patients. Therefore it could also be argued that euthanasia benefits nurses by enabling them to act compassionately towards patients with untreatable suffering.

Conclusion

In my opinion, euthanasia is an acceptable practice and could be considered the best way to die. I feel that quality of life can degrade to the point where life is no longer worth living and that it is cruel to impose a life of unbearable suffering on a person if they wish to die. While there should be an attempt to improve the quality of life through palliative care, I recognize that it is not guaranteed that this will indefinitely maintain an adequate quality of life and that after palliative care begins to fail the needs of the patient, euthanasia should be considered as an option. I share the concerns of others noted by Hurst SA. and Mauron A. that an endorsement of euthanasia could potentially lead to a reduction in palliative care, as it may be seen as an alternative to it. It is therefore important that if euthanasia is to be available that there are strict guidelines and procedures around its delivery to ensure that other options are explored first. There is evidence to suggest that this is not a concern because Belgium and the Netherlands – two countries in which euthanasia is legalized – have greater palliative care resources than many surrounding countries in which euthanasia is not legal.

In regards to the use of continuous sedation over euthanasia, I believe there to be no difference ethically in the actions being performed. In cases where a patient is undergoing continuous sedation, they are no longer able to live in an autonomous manner, and to say that the patient is still truly alive is a technicality, in that their biological processes continue to function. While ethically these can be considered to be the same, I recognize that the distinction between dying naturally and being actively killed is an important one for some, such as those who are religious, and therefore suggests that both should be able to be requested by patients as an option for end of life care.

The use of euthanasia raises many issues, with many valid points existing on both sides of the argument. By some it is considered to be an act of mercy, allowing someone to die with dignity in order to relieve their suffering where all other options have failed to do so. On the other hand, others view it as an immoral and unnecessary practice, arguing the same effects can be achieved through palliative measures, without the ethical and social implications raised by actively causing a person’s death. More research and discussion will be required to appropriately resolve the issue of euthanasia’s place in modern-day society. As time progresses and medicine continues to improve, more people will find themselves reaching the last stages of life, making this issue increasingly relevant with every passing day.

Okja, the third and final piece of recent cinema offering a solution to overpopulation delves into the topic of genetically modified food and the ethical considerations for this. The most highlighted ethical issue of genetically modified food in the 2017 AdventureSci-Fi is greed and exploitation in the strive for industry dominance. These are existing issues that can be seen today as corporate control over genetically modified seeds and the produce markets in general have proved pose threat to small-scale and independent famers in the industry. Many sustainable food organisations are against genetically modified produce; Slow Food International is just one example. As an organisation, they believe that ‘Patenting genetic material has shifted the balance of economic power towards big business in their aggressive pursuit of profit’, consolidating the concerns of this issue in Okja (2017).

The entire GM food chain is under the control of multinational companies such as Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, and Dow, which concerns anti-GMO organisations such as Slow Food greatly. This means that these corporations ‘control majority of the seed market and often also produce herbicides and fertilizers’ (Slow Food International, 2015). It is also recognised that small-scale farmers are targeted by these large corporations in various ways: farmers can be sued for producing crops that have been ‘accidentally contaminated with patented GM crops. Farmers are crucial for the preservation of the land and surrounding local areas, therefore both consumers and governments should be in favour of these vital, small-scale, local farmers who are slowly being over-taken by these ‘demanding’ big businesses (Slow Food International, 2015). Wynne, 2001 argues that the ethics of GMO’s are a fresh topic of discussion and takes a closer look at an ethical concern dubbed ‘public alienation’. This refers to the way in which the public respond to things such as GMO’s, which may present an ethical issue. The concept that ‘ethical concerns might be interwoven with knowledge-issues’ entails those areas of weakness surrounding GMOs prove to cause the ethical issues such as public mistrust which are a prevalent topic when discussing the ethical ‘risks’ of mass producing genetically modified crops for human consumption. Due to the gaps in knowledge of crucial long-term effects that GMOs might have, it is questioned whether human purposes for genetic modification are of enough significance to ‘justify taking on such unpredictable possible effects’ (Wynne, 2001).

An additional concern as suggested by Wynne is as to whether the public interest can be defended sufficiently by the forms of promotion and innovation used in the research and practice of GMOs. Perhaps the largest ethical concern of GMOs is the effects they have the potential to have on human health. Disease and allergies caused by GMO’s are a big concern as some of the crops that have been modified have been done so with various virus and bacterium, both of which have the potential to lead to new diseases in humans. GM crops are often carriers of antibiotic-resistant genes, which scientists fear can and will be spread to other microbes. This could prove to be detrimental to existing research of antibiotics known to be effective in treating disease. Accompanied with the knowledge that antibiotic resistance is already a widespread issue, genetically modified crops ‘could be disastrous’.

McKeachie and Svinicki (2006) assume that ethical standards are intended to guide us in carrying out the responsibilities we have, to the different groups with whom we interact, and violation of ethics can occur when one acts contrary to standards (326). For Peale and Blanchard (1984), wherever we go today there are visible signs of deterioration of ethics, in the business world young people make immoral millions of dollars. In the government offices, it is rare to hear that an employee has not been involved in ethical dilemmas. In education, scandals between students and professors are common phenomena (7).

Students all levels, approach their peers and university staff to report inappropriate behaviours of their teachers. Some lecturers go to the extent of failing students because they refused to offer them sex. This not only happen to students. Lecturers suffer moral and sexual harassment from students, something to be thought and taken into consideration. If, in the first world, countries like America, ethical dilemmas are considered common, it is crucial to look at developing countries with an inverted pyramid of events and ethical dilemmas, where university professors earn fourteen thousand dollars a year. Yet they are expected to work morally right, whistle waiting for their minus salaries at the month end. It is however, not an excuse to engage into inappropriate behavior.

It is obvious that teachers in developing countries will live ethical dilemmas every day, by virtue of their socio-economic position, ethical and ambitious challenges. To avoid involvement in unethical action, teachers feel forced to teach in three or four schools, which results in the poor quality delivery, and burned-out professors. Most of these professionals are prominent in the societies they live, who think that they had to swindle to overcome their non-desirable conditions. Therefore, violation of ethics in academic arenas has been reciprocal, between teachers and students, without setting aside the members of administration and other employees.

Ethical codes and conduct must be made clear to all involved in educational settings, right at the beginning of the term or year so as to avoid excuses, and necessary measures taken against those who yield to unacceptable behaviors as to discourage them. However, it is quite impossible to establish ethical principles in the board members and professors who are evolved in activities in unethical behaviors with students, even among teachers in full view of students. Although, there is no right way for neither doing wrong, nor should the ends justify the means. Acting ethically, requires reciprocal respect “the otherness of students” (McKeachie, 2006, 330), and not do to others that which we do not wish others do to us.

Teachers must be models of all that it means to be scholars, and this calls for a continuous responsible self-reflection on their personal standards and life. Exploitation and discrimination of all sort, and abuse, must be discouraged at all cost. Smith (1996) quoted in McKeachie (2006) believes that abuse of power is the base of many of the ethical traps that lie strewn across our paths as teacher (334).

Introduction

A recent study about the levels of integrity and fair play within the middle school HPE classes at Palm Beach Currumbin State High School (PBC) has been researched and analysed with the help of a survey. The survey conducted has been used to gather primary data on student engagement within the Middle School HPE classes at Palm Beach Currumbin State High School with an objective to recognise ethical issues that impacts the integrity and fair play of students. The survey focuses on the issues that influences of the dilemma such as, ability in performance of students, going beyond the rules of the game and negative coaching. A strategy will then be devised and then will be put in place to ultimately combat this dilemma. The data collected has been reviewed and has shown a significant issue with students having regular disregard for the rules and going outside of protocols, in goals of winning the game. The data also indicates that when trying to win beyond the rules of the game it has a negative impact on student’s engagement, participation and performance. Formal and informal fair play has a huge influence in the dilemma of cheating. Formal fair play is following the written rules of the game, whereas informal fair play is, the rules that aren’t written but they are still expected that all players follow them such as, behaving in a sporting spirit. It also demonstrates attitudes and behaviours in sport consistent with the belief that sport is an ethical pursuit. It does not include acts of violence, cheating, drug abuse or any form of exploitation in an effort to win (olympic.org). The ethical dilemma that is being focused on is trying to win beyond the rules of the game. I have decided to define my ethical dilemma using the following question.

Does emphasis on fair play, rather than winning, increase the student’s engagement and performance in Palm Beach Currumbin middle school HPE classes?

Discussion

A survey has been created and distributed to Middle school HPE classes and students at Palm Beach Currumbin State High School (PBC). The survey included questions regarding ethical dilemmas within lessons. The survey will be used as primary data and will then be analysed to create a strategy to combat any ethical dilemmas to ultimately increase student’s involvement and performance within lessons.

The data graph is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.

Figure 1

In Figure 1, Data was gathered on how often students experience witnessing other students trying to win beyond the rules, such as cheating, to analyse/identify the ethical dilemma that influences the lack of student engagement and performance in middle school HPE classes. The data has been collected by the help of a PBC survey that all students in middle school HPE classes have participated in and has been shown as a data graph. Figure 1 shows that there is an evident ethical dilemma within PBC middle school HPE classes in relation to students witnessing other students trying to win beyond the rules, such as cheating. 227 middle school students in HPE classes have been surveyed. The results from the data graph shows that this dilemma is occurring in HPE classes, almost more than 40% of students have ‘sometimes’ witnessed other students trying to win beyond the rules, such as cheating. Nearly 13% of students ‘always’ witness this occurring, in comparison to students ‘Never’ witnessing this occur. As it can be seen, a considerable number of students have been witnessed trying to win beyond the rules of the game at least once. This is a clear indication that an ethical dilemma exists as it is witnessed that, more students are ‘always’ trying to win beyond the rules of the game rather than ‘never’ trying to win beyond the rules. There is a trend that most people have seen someone else try to win beyond the rules of the game at least sometimes if not more.

Figure 2

In Figure 2, it shows the results from Question 4 in the PBC survey. The data was gathered on how does ‘Question 3’ impact students involvement and performance in the lesson. When it is witnessed that other students are trying to win beyond the rules of the game, it does not have a positive impact on majority of the class with under 10% saying that it has positive impact in their involvement and performance. But it clearly has negative effect on a lot more students with over 40% of students being negatively affected by most of the class. Even though 50% of the students said that it has no impact on their involvement and performance. This indicates that even though the majority of students are trying to win beyond the rules of the game it still negatively affects their involvement and performance in class. It is concerning that most of students in middle school HPE lessons are trying to win beyond the rules of the game because it impacts their integrity and positive engagement in HPE lessons.

In addition to the PBC survey that assessed if any ethical dilemmas were present in PBC middle school HPE classes, other research and data has been gathered by organizations and websites such as, AUS sports and Play By the Rules which both have set code of conducts to ensure fair play is followed and valued in all sports.

Introduction

Colonel Harlan Sanders is the organizer of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). He was born on September 9, 1890. When his mother needs to go to work, he needs to do a lot of home cooking. After his father kicked the ball, he dealt with three relatives. Since then, he has figured out how to cook and increase the value of various neighborhood foods at the age of seven.

In the 1930s, Colonel Sanders, who was only 40 years old, bought a gas station, a hotel and a tavern in Corbin, Kentucky. After the work went on, he got them. He tried different flavors to prepare his chicken. Many explorers like the taste of his chicken, which makes his chicken widely known.

In the following nine years, Colonel Sanders established his mysterious recipe, which included 11 spices and flavors and basic cooking strategies, which are still in use today. It turns out that he is more well-known. He sold his chicken on the highway, but then the road was destroyed and later sold. Since then, he has traveled to the United States by car to cook chicken for restaurant owners and their workers. When the chance of them liking the chicken was small, he could get nickel from every chicken sold in the cafe.

By 1964, Colonel Harland Sanders (Col. Harland Sanders, Colorado) had 600 chicken farms across the United States and Canada. Soon thereafter, he sold his passion for American business for $2 million. He died at the age of 90 on December 16, 1980. He is committed to building the whole field, and his legacy is spread all over the world in KFC restaurants, serving the Colonel’s unique plan. This is a $13 billion brand from Kentucky. (Amodia, 2015)

Findings of the Reports

Ethics is a set of principles with a theoretical or moral value system. The purpose of research ethics is to study the universality of morality in order to control one’s behavior. What is the dilemma? Dilemmas are situations where difficult choices are made between alternatives. What is an ethical dilemma? This is also called a moral dilemma. Ethical dilemmas are common in the work environment. Moral dilemma refers to the difficulty that people encounter when choosing between ethical behavior and unethical behavior. An organization may face many ethical dilemmas, and KFC is one of the organizations facing major dilemmas. KFC was established by Colonel Sanders in 1952 and is one of the most popular fast food restaurants in the world. KFC currently provides operations, franchising and services for approximately 11,000 fast food restaurants worldwide.

A few years ago, nearly 8 million customers used KFC every day. However, due to the increasing awareness of health in today’s society, the number of KFC sales has recently fallen sharply. Nowadays, people pay more attention to their health and figure than before. Reports and studies have shown that fast food has no nutrition and is the biggest fact that causes obesity.

The Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) company has ethical issues. KFC’s moral issues have aroused social attention. The media released news about KFC problems. KFC Malaysia must take appropriate ethical actions to correct the problem in order to restore customer loyalty to the KFC brand awareness. (pravinatormeister, 2015)

Chicken Abuse, and PETA

KFC needs to give 700 million chickens to eateries around the globe consistently. KFC guaranteed that they ‘just arrangement with providers who guarantee to keep up our exclusive requirements and are focused on creature government assistance.’ But with respect to the treatment of the bought chickens (verification of realistic proof), a scientist who treats creatures morally (PETA) took a video demonstrating that the chicken was purposely manhandled by laborers. The video was taken at a slaughterhouse at Pilgrim’s Pride in Moorefield, West Virginia. Laborers there kicked live chickens like football and crushed them on the divider. Clearly these laborers were only for diversion. This time it won’t occur. PETA’s examination of KFC shows that KFC has an excessive number of providers. In the United States alone, numerous providers are included, and Tyson Slaughterhouse is one of them. It was appeared in the slaughterhouse that the flying creature was purposefully singed to death, crushed by impermanent fireworks, and broken by laborers so it could be put in the snare and circle of the butcher line. Tyson is the biggest provider of KFC.

In different nations, the most famous issue with respect to KFC provider misuse is in India. Individuals found that the chickens were pressed brimming with cadavers, brutal taking care of techniques, debilitated and harmed chicken stockrooms, however never got any clinical help, and they were tormented by barbarous specialists, they didn’t consider creature government assistance Minimum principles. Savagery to creatures can be characterized as KFC’s most genuine good difficulty.

In India, on August 20, 2003, a five-foot-tall chicken was bbleed with quills and snouts on a couple of strolling sticks outside the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The chicken was conveniently restricted in the Indian branch in Bangalore. This chicken was brought by PETA activists who conveyed playing a card game, ‘Stopped India’ and ‘Stop Play Fowl’. The chicken was put in the middle and calmly challenged the supposed winged animal maltreatment in the KFC poultry ranch. Media faculty were approached to cover the walk widely. Because of the far and wide fights, Canada’s PETA new creature government assistance program has been actualized in the manufacturing plants of KFC providers. As per the new arrangement, 100% of chicken meat will be bought from providers that utilization Atmospheric Controlled Killing (CAK).

PETA’s dissent is against the savagery and maltreatment of KFC chickens. They have no goal of updating KFC’s general assembling measure. Rather, PETA asked KFC to receive a creature government assistance plan created by its five individuals (KFC) Animal Welfare Committee and embrace Controlled Killing Atmosphere Killing Here (CAK). As per PETA, the poultry ranches where travelers are pleased don’t consent to any animal government assistance principles. Like the featured Belo, these chickens were hit hard on the poultry ranch before being butchered.

KFC is generally a greasy food made with abundance oil and added substances, (for example, salt and sugar), which implies there are a great deal of calories. On the off chance that clients devour a lot of cheap food, they may get hefty and experience the ill effects of diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and heart-related manifestations because of unreasonable fat prompting raised cholesterol. Clients may likewise expend an excess of inexpensive food since it is less expensive to purchase in enormous amounts. Moreover, considers have been finished to demonstrate that individuals living close to drive-through joints are bound to be fat.

Murder the chickens before they are a month and a half old. In the slaughterhouse, the chickens are hanging upside down and moved to the slaughterhouse by means of a transport line. Such a large number of chickens were unloaded from the cases onto the quick moving transport line, making the chickens at the base choke. Unfit to deal with countless chickens, the laborers discarded a few chickens and hammered them on the divider or floor. So as to eliminate quills during preparing, live chickens are tossed into high temp water.(pravinatormeister, 2015)

Human Resources Policies

Above photograph is the episode that occurs in KFC I-City, Malaysia. This episode was occurring on sixth February 2012. The occurrence happens is on the grounds that the client has been sitting tight for over 1 hour yet when goes to his turn, there is NO MORE seared chicken for the clients. The client demands the administration to apologize however the Store Manager fail to help that issue. The issues happen when the specialist yelled: ‘kalau mau makan, buat sendiri lah BABI… ‘ is means that ‘do it with your own on the off chance that you need to eat, pig.’ The KFC I-City labourers assault clients by utilizing awful portrayals words to the clients cause this battle occur. Workers must dodge to do assault activity to the clients. As a drive-through joint which sells administration, KFC labourers need to comprehend clients’ correct.

The Humane Society of the United States characterizes creature maltreatment as a scope of unfeeling conduct to the creatures which incorporates unexpected disregard and deliberate disregard to pernicious killings. In light of the creature savagery issues, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the creature right gathering have been fighting KFC’s treatment of the creatures utilized for its items with the Kentucky Fried Cruelty crusade. PETA states that they have held in excess of 12,000 showings at KFC outlets since 2003 in view of supposed abuse of chickens by KFC providers.

KFC HR office should direct their arrangements. Absence of control of rules and guidelines and order cause KFC moral exercises has been raised to news by confronting allegation from the general public. HR is the authoritative capacity that manages issues identified with individuals, for example, pay, recruiting, execution the board, association improvement, security, health, benefits, representative inspiration, correspondence, organization, and preparing.

HR is additionally a key and far reaching way to deal with overseeing individuals and the work environment culture and climate. Viable HR empowers workers to contribute successfully and beneficially to the general organization bearing and the achievement of the association’s objectives and goals.

HR significant arrangement is client right starts things out. In light of the cases occur in I-CITY Shah Alam, the KFC notice that once the examination is finished, KFC will make all fitting move to address any infringement of KFC severe working techniques and client support norms. (ukessays, 2017)

Job Satisfaction, as Working Condition

Crafted by the Manuel G. Velasques (1996) accentuation that the discerning pieces of the association put in a high incentive on effectiveness: All positions and assignments are to be planned to accomplish the association’s objectives as proficiently as could reasonably be expected. At the point when effectiveness is accomplished through specialization, the level-headed parts of associations will in general fuse exceptionally specific positions. As we known, who are working in a drive-through joint is certainly held on for continue rehashing similar positions ordinarily with no exemption. This prompts work disappointment to the labourers, it will change their perspectives when they feel irritated in doing their works, this is additionally why a few clients grumbling on they got impolite administrations in the chain. Effectiveness is accomplished by understanding the labourers inspirational examples. Educator Abrahim Maslow referred to in his examination the 5 need factors, for instance security, social and regard. These variables are moral and upgrades profitability at KFC both neighbourhood and globally.

At the point when representatives glad, they will work joyfully and afterward treat their client better, the brilliant standard is to perceive the distinctions is societies and financial advancement of the nations. To more readily esteem KFC, the reasonable exchange idea is to be used further to firms, network association, focusing on ought to be the code of practices in KFC. (pravinatormeister, 2015)

Conclusion

To put it plainly, it tends to be said that business morals is significant for business associations. It can help associations effectively win the regard of clients and win far reaching acclaim. In opposition to individuals’ conviction that social obligation subverts the organization’s benefit objectives, it really produces benefits through client unwaveringness and a decent organization picture. For KFC, KFC must have the option to guarantee that the items it gives are sound and nutritious to guarantee that KFC picks up the trust, steadfastness and regard of clients, and that the organization’s picture is secured and created.

The fundamental motivation behind this report is to direct a moral examination of KFC. The report investigated the principle moral difficulties looked by KFC, particularly the perspectives on shoppers, providers, workers and society all in all. Despite the fact that KFC is the most famous chicken café network on the planet, it presently faces numerous ethical predicaments. For instance, the problem between shoppers’ interest for sound food and the truth of giving unhealthy food, just as the predicament looked by the connection among KFC and its providers, and among KFC and its workers.

So as to take care of these issues, KFC endeavors to alter as indicated by purchasers’ inclinations, and takes fitting measures to build up a success win connection between the organization, providers and workers. The report accepts that KFC’s best morals is its endeavors to satisfy its social obligations. KFC effectively settled the KFC Lei Education Foundation to offer monetary help for instruction, and set up the Food and Health Foundation to finance logical exploration, exposure and training ventures identified with nourishment and wellbeing. Considering KFC’s generally dishonest exhibition in publicizing, this report contains a few proposals.

Recommendations

In this part, the report will make proposals on moral issues in publicizing, on the grounds that KFC referenced in the above depiction neglects to give moral execution in such manner. Lately, KFC’s beguiling promoting has been scrutinized. It is clearly deceptive to maintain a business that for the most part gives fatty consuming food and cases that its items have unpretentious advantages. When planning and showing ads, it is suggested that KFC treat purchasers mindfully and give precise and exhaustive depictions of its items. Misleading statements, ambiguities, distortions, duplicities, and so forth ought to be totally kept away from in promotions. It is acceptable to educate purchasers regarding dietary and calorie data. Preferably, KFC ought to endeavor to sell its items using non-manipulative and influential advancements, and educate purchasers in a far reaching and honest way

KFC should meet everything lawful business prerequisites to improve its feasibility. The Ministry of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests a greatest stocking thickness of 30 chickens of around 34 kg for each square meter, and said that when the noses should be managed to forestall shared mischief between them, only 33% of the poultry ought to be supplied. feathered creatures. The mouth ought to be managed from the tip to the passage of the nostril.

At last, I figure the HR office must take all obligations. The HR division ought to furnish representatives with worker preparing plans to normalize their conduct and work mentality. KFC ought to likewise normalize provider sets of principles. All workers and providers who follow KFC guidelines ought to be rebuffed.

Dr. Jeffrey Wigand made a moral and ethical decision to expose safety concerns with Brown and Williamson tobacco industry, where he was a director of research (Feldman, 2016). He did provide information and proof that his company was adding more additives to make their product more addictive and he exposed them for it (Feldman, 2016). How Dr. Jeffry Wigand showed moral intelligence is by taking a stand for what’s wrong and right, he risked his carrier and his life due to death threats for the customers. He seen that adding additional nicotine to increase the customer’s addiction is morally and ethically wrong, and he made sure he took a stand for what he believes is correct. How he was a leader in this situation is he never backed down and continued to make sure they were exposed, and something was done about it. He did not let the death threats deter his feeling of what was right. I think for his own credibility was feeling good about standing up for what is right and making a difference in those individual’s lives that were purchasing and using their products (Feldman, 2016).

If I found something that was unethical in my workplace, I would first go to my supervisor to see if they see this as unethical. If the supervisor does not see there is any problems or that the situation is unethical of course I would then go up the ladder until we get to senior leadership. Once situation was brought to leadership and they respond back with no unethical standpoint and they are not going to do anything about it, I would most definitely move in the same direction as Dr. Jeffrey Wigand and make sure to expose the company. This would not be to hurt them but to get them to turn things around and do right by the people or customers they serve. I currently work for a reproductive healthcare provider and would not want to do anything unethical or wrong to our patients. My decision would not be based on the severity of the unethical practice, because I see unethical is unethical, regardless of big or small. Like I have always said wrong is wrong, and you cannot cover up wrong for a long time, it will soon show itself in many ways.

The reason that some people tend to accept unethical practices and others do not, because most people are scared to stand up for what’s right. People are scared about how others will look at them and perceive them as causing problems in the workplace and people make comments if they do not agree. Some fear change and how that will impact them. They do not want to speak up because they are scared to lose their job, because they are supporting a family and themselves. So, because of that they do not say anything, and they go with the flow.

Overall, everyone should feel they can stand up for what they feel is right without any kind of repercussion. That everyone should accept and be respectful of everyone’s opinions, thoughts, ideas and if something is truly unethical then to reach out for assistance. I see Dr. Jeffrey Wigand as a great influence for everyone to stand up for what they feel is right and ethical. When you stand up for what is right it will make you feel good about yourself like it did Dr. Jeffrey Wigand.

References

1. Feldman, C. (2016, 02 04). 60 Minutes’ Most Famous Whistleblower. Retrieved from CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-most-famous-whistleblower/

It is unethical to target uninformed consumers because these consumers waste money on name brands and these brands often mislead, exploit, or spam consumers to trick them into buying their products.

Let’s start with how uninformed consumers waste money on name brands. A new study writes Harvard behavioral economics professor Cass Sunstein, shows that “the more informed you are, the more likely you are to choose store brands. If all consumers were better-informed, then, consumer markets would look very different,’ says Sunstein, who co-wrote a 2008 book arguing that poor choices are often the product of unaddressed biases. The report found that by sticking to generic products instead of national brands, consumers could save as much as $44b. Another example is if a taxi driver in an unfamiliar city knows that someone else is covering your fare, they are much more likely to charge you a higher price than is justified by the distance you are taking. That is one of the lessons from an economic experiment involving 400 undercover taxi rides in Athens, Greece. This manipulation had an economically pronounced and statistically significant positive effect on taxi bills, with undercover passengers in that treatment 17% more likely to pay higher-than-justified prices for a given ride. Total consumer expenditures increased by an average of 6% when consumers indicated that someone else would be paying the bill. In addition, female customers were on average more susceptible to fraud and paying higher prices than men. This proves that consumers are basically robbed of their money by companies that are trying to sell their products or make more money.

Brands often mislead, exploit, or spam consumers to trick them into buying their products. For example, Ads for Dannon’s popular Activia brand yogurt landed the company with a class action settlement of $45 million in 2010, according to ABC News. The yogurt was marketed as being “clinically” and “scientifically proven” to boost your immune system and able to help regulate digestion. As a result, the yogurt was sold at 30% higher prices than other similar products. This shows that many companies have misled their customers just to make more money. Also, it is also shown that these customers are often uninformed about the products they buy. Many can say that you eliminate the waste and cost of marketing to consumers unlikely to use your services. But the truth is that the only people that benefit from targeting uninformed consumers are the people selling the product to consumers. The companies are in it for themselves and want to make money. A study by the University of Massachusetts found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation. According to Forbes, Christopher Elliot claims that “misleading a customer about a price, hiding ‘gotcha’ clauses in the fine print, making claims about the products that aren’t true may not even be crimes. At least, that’s the impression we’re left with, in a world where the government cares more about freeing businesses from ‘burdensome’ regulation than protecting consumers.”

In conclusion, it is unethical the target uninformed consumers because not only does it mislead them but it also makes them spend much more money than they need to. Of course, it benefits the companies that sell the product but does it really help the consumers?

Many grocery stores around the world have been useful to provide a variety of foods and other services as well. From the 15th century starting mass production of natural grocery varieties to modern society such as Walmart and other grocery stores enriching the needs of others was a great business tool and idea that has built upon people’s needs for food and drinks. There have been many successes being made in grocery stores providing the needs of others, but has also gone overbroad in labeling and acquit the services of targeting uninformed consumers buying a product. Targeting uninformed consumers, especially those who do not perceive education and are unclear about the elements contained in a product is an unethical way of marketing and should regulate laws based on this unbehavioral business.

Providing a product to any uninformed consumer is a violation and considered to be an ‘unethical business practice’ because there have been data as health investigations showing that certain grocery stores that contained unlabeled foods and not providing GMO notifications are more likely to have health issues than a grocery store providing labeled and services towards informed costumers. According to the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), they show that 20% of the grocery stores in the United States have labeling issues or nonlabeled products, and surveys showing that people who go to these grocery stores are experiencing health problems regarding this issue. People in Indonesia suffered from various diseases such as Malaria, Skin viruses, and other organ viruses as well. The ingredients that were unlabeled were harming others according to the Indonesia National Food Department which recorded and coordinated with the Federal Disease Control (FDC). The amount of people that have to face the fatalities that uninformed consumers faced is unacceptable and needs to be fixed immediately to stop the crisis that not only the United States faces today but also the 3rd world countries around the world. Also, religion does play a role in this sector because Gluten is a part that isn’t labeled in most products. Many religions such as some Hindus, Sikhism, Jainism, and Judaism follow the norm that they are not allowed to eat any meat products. Gluten comes from pig grease which impacts the people who follow these religions and is considered extremely unethical to provide individuals with this kind of service.

Other businesses would agree that providing uninformed consumers with no services on the labeling of the product has a more immense opportunity of making a more efficient profit in their opinion. Businesses would make a better profit which an agreeable, but this is again an unacceptable practice in the business world and more people are suffering due to this. Since religion plays a role in these small eyes of unethical practices, uninformed consumers need to be informed in order to prevent major political and economical issues.