Tag: James Pilant

Would You Like Your Surgery On Network Television?

On By southwerkIn business ethics

(This article appeared originally in June of 2010. It wasn’t properly tagged and I am resubmitting it so Google can see it.)

An quite intelligent gentleman sent me an e-mail asking what I thought ethically about TV crews filming real cases up to and including surgery. He referred to two articles, Doctors on the Cutting Edge of Reality (The Boston Globe), and ABC’s ‘Boston Med’ shows the painful reality of surgery at the heart of 3 Massachusetts hospitals, (The New York Daily News).

The program is “Boston Med,” an eight part documentary filmed by ABC. The newspaper article from the Boston Globe quotes George Annas and Arthur L. Caplan. Both express ethical concerns about the program suggesting that the program is inappropriate and exploitative. Inappropriate because filming changes the acts of the filmed. Exploitative because these patients did not come to the hospital with the intent of being in a film.

Now, the tricky part, is this ethical or unethical based on my judgment? After all, that is what the gentleman asked me. I will discuss the two kinds of objects posed by the critics quoted by the Globe. Is the filming inappropriate or exploitative?

I do not believe such filming is inappropriate. Being filmed is rapidly becoming a constant. Cameras are located at businesses and parking areas. There are also cameras at public facilities likes parks and bridges. I could go on listing where business or government cameras might be found. In addition, personal cameras either individually or part of a another apparatus like a cell phone are also very common. So, my first claim is that being filmed is a cultural phenomenon. I believe that we are in a sea change period of cultural change in which it is rapidly becoming accepted behavior. That does not totally resolve the issue. We are not totally accustomed to being filmed yet. So, the next element is consent.

It is clear from the articles that the institutions, the professionals and the patients had signed waivers. It is entirely possible to improperly influence all of the different levels of personnel and patients to get their consent. However, a television network has enormous experience in these matters and with what can be only described as an alert and experienced legal department. My opinion is that no lawyer would allow the program to go forward with his strong participation and with all possible safeguards.

Does being filmed change human behavior? I would say almost certainly. We always do things differently if we are being observed. We care what other people think. We can become self-conscious. Strangely that really isn’t the ethical question here. The ethical question is, “Does this change technical competence or medical judgment for the worse?” I know of no such evidence. My personal experience is that when watched, I am more careful, take greater pains and think more about what I am doing. (If anyone reading this post has any study or data that suggests that being filmed is detrimental to performance, I want to know where to find that study. I want to read it and thoroughly understand it. That study would be vital and would undoubtedly change the procedures of knowingly filmed observations.)

Exploitation is more difficult. Where do you cross the line between objective reporting and using people? The network will make a great deal of money from these programs. The hospital and the doctors as part of the hospital are essentially participating in public relations program which will enhance the reputation and thus, the value of the institution.

The patients are not part of this. They do not profit and their stories, the intimate details of their medical records and and procedures, are used by the network to make money. This is exploitation. These patients are not a routine participants. The very nature of the television strongly suggests that the reason they would choose these particular stories is that they are not routine. And even if their stories are in some sense routine, they are still individual stories, critical elements of their life stories.

You could argue that in our strange celebrity culture, the very fact of appearing on television is in some sense compensation. “In some sense” doesn’t cut it. There are people who genuinely enjoy their jobs, they like what they do and many enjoy being seen doing it. They still expect to get paid. There is a difference between the urge to appear on Jerry Springer and having a serious medical problem brought before the public.

The patients should be paid or compensated in some other way. There should be some value given for the value that was taken. It is not the custom to share our medical problems, treatments and individual stories with millions of strangers. These stories are the personal property of the patients, not the hospital and not the doctors. As a society we have already acknowledged the vital nature of medical record privacy in the form of HIPAA, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

It is obvious from these accounts that the patients voluntarily signed away their rights and allowed the network access to their stories. What has been done here and is being done is legal. But being in compliance with the law is not the measure of ethical responsibility or, what is most important, what is right and wrong.

James Pilant

Free Financial Choice?

On By southwerkIn ethics2 Comments

I am what is call a compatibilist. Compatibilism is the belief that determinism and free will are compatible.

For many today, free will – free choices are terms of great import. “People should be able to fend for themselves.” “You shouldn’t count on the government.” “You should have read the fine print.” “They should have gone on the web and done their research like me.” “If only people would just get tough they could pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.”

These are all statements based on the hard concept of free will or, as it is more often termed, personal responsibility.

One writer to me said, “How come you can’t get it into your head that …” discussing another point of personal responsibility. You see, such choice seems self evident, it’s not.

Here are my objections –
1. The weight of culture, that is, parenting, schooling and the influence of one’s peers.
2. Advertising, several trillion dollars worth of it, ranging from political to mercantile.
3. Time and aptitude, for someone to make a choice, they must know there is one, they must have the time necessary to digest the data and have the mental capability and far more importantly the mental desire. By mental desire I mean a willingness and often a pleasure in thinking and deciding.

In my mind, individuals have free choices, but only a certain number of these individuals can make different choices. You see I was trained in statistics and when you are in that field you are taught (and realize that it is true) that you have very little chance of predicting what any one person will do but analyze several thousand instead of one and you have a very good grip on what most of them will do.

Who makes choices and what proportion of the population makes choices? If you go to the market and watch someone buy bread, you’ll note that only occasionally will someone spend any time making a decision, they decided at some point in time what bread they wanted to buy and they buy that kind of bread. Even at the bread level of thought there is an inertia about making a new decision. Now you can go into that supermarket and look at all the bread every time. In other words, choose not to make a decision in advance but re-study the problem every time new data (in this case, bread) comes in.

Now, you probably would agree with me that the second choice of deciding each time taking the new data into account is the better decision. Are you sure? You see, both of you are choosing from the same products limited by the store’s choices. So, you could argue (and quite intelligently) that by limiting yourself to what the store sells keeps you from making the best decision. On the other hand you might also argue that shopping outside that store poses problems of time and resources (and you would also be quite intelligent in presenting your argument).

So, here is my argument. Choosing between one alternative and another involves judgment. For most people in most situations there are physical, cultural or mental limits on making the full range of judgments. So, we don’t have a full range of decision making possibilities but only a limited set. Thus, for almost all situations, we limited by one of the three factors, have only limited choices we can make.

If we have limited instead of unlimited choices, the question of what judgments people makes moves from what is the best decision to a different one – what is the best decision that could have been made amongst the choices remaining?

This puts me in a world where I have to look at what people are likely to do.

Example – Someone puts a payday loan business in lower middle class community. The company carefully chooses an area where the education level is a low as possible say an average of tenth grade. I can statistically predict how much business they will get based on the population, the amount and interest of the loans, etc. I, personally, will be offended at what I consider the exploitation of a population already under terrible economic stress.

If you on the other hand, assume total, not limited choice, these people are just a bunch of imbeciles, who couldn’t find their ass with a flashlight.

I believe that in this country there are a wide variety of legitimate choices in many fields, in many places, all the time. I work hard to give people the opportunity to make choices and I like to make them myself. But as long as I live in a world where the rule is limited choice not total, I’m going to sympathize with the people getting the pay day loans and suffering for it.

James Pilant

5 Most Costly Lies in Finance (via Kathy Kristof at CBS Money Watch)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Kathy Kristof
I am not always kind to Ms. Kristof. I find her writing fluffy with topics better associated with one of those women’s magazines like “Seven Better Ways to Make Your Man Appreciate You.”

Nevertheless I like this one and she has a done a service by hitting the golden oldies in business lies. I teach college and am often surprised how few of my students understand the most basic lies, cons and fallacious offers in the business world.

Here’s an excerpt. –

Unfortunately this confusing Wall Street-speak could put you in in a fog when approaching financial transactions. And that can make you vulnerable to people who would like to trick you out of your money. When salesmen and con artists see that your normal radar for bad advice, toxic investments and outright scams is getting nothing but fog (the potential result of all the hot air on Wall Street), they ramp up clever lies to separate you from your cash.

I recommend you go to CBS and read the five lies. You might say something nice about Ms. Kristof while you are there.

James Pilant

Steven Mintz Responds To My Post – $250,000 And Poor

On By southwerkIn business ethics1 Comment

Steven Mintz
Steven Mintz also known as The Ethics Sage commented on my earlier post about a Internet publication’s post about the difficulty of living on a quarter of a million a year.

James, I agree with your sentiments. The divide between rich and poor with a growing middle class is expanding rapidly. I wouldn’t classify all billionaires as greedy. The pursuit of self-interest is always a factor and often at the cost of others as too often occurs in corporations. There are, however, a few good people that either use their money to better society, improve our educational system, help those who can’t help themselves, and even fight world hunger and illiteracy. We know of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates in the business world who have started foundations for these purposes. They seem to be trying to do the right thing. The jury is still out on Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, who has pledged to donate a significant amount of his money. Oprah Winfrey comes to mind and her charitable efforts as well as using personal gravitas to improve conditions around the world. Perhaps we can include someone like Angelina Jolie who seems genuinely concerned about the unfortunate circumstances of way too many people in other countries. That said, you are absolutely right that the fabric of our nation has changed and not for the better. The middle class get squeezed more and more. The sad part is nothing has be done, even with the financial crisis, to address these issues and I fear nothing will be done because of the influence and desire of those with the billions to continue the trend and the willingness of our Congressional leaders, many of whom are already wealthy (or hope to be so after leaving office)to support the obsessively rich because they hope to join their ranks some day.

I recommend you add The Ethics Sage to your favorites.

James Pilant

Please Comment!

On By southwerkIn ethics, Teaching7 Comments

My readers have increased in number fairly dramatically in this last year. I’ve talked to other bloggers, many with far more audience than I have. They tell me that the vast majority of people do not comment and probably will never comment. I remember laughing with another blogger (if you can do that online) that we seemed to be the only two people discussing his post and he had almost a thousand hits on it.

As we discussed it, he told me of his surprise that so few comments had been posted out of so many visitors.

He would have like to have had more of an ongoing conversation with his readers and so do I.

So, if you want to say something do so.

I have a rule in my class – proving the teacher wrong, arguing with the teacher, disagreeing with the teacher, or telling the teacher something he doesn’t want to hear, will never in any way harm your grade. In fact, sometimes it has given me the opportunity to raise a grade based on class participation and my delight in finding a fighting spirit out there in the group. Fighting spirits can be annoying and difficulty and they are also major engines of change. I give them credit when ever I see one.

I am going to brag on myself. One charming young lady was able to correct me factually twice one semester. She holds the record.

So, if you see that my rule with people who are actually physically present is toleration and interest, why don’t you feel free to jump in?

As always, whether you ever comment or not, I deeply appreciate you taking the time to read my writings. Millions of people write on the web generally just to themselves and a few friends. I have been blessed that others have taken an interest in what I say. Your attention to my writing, my ideas, is a great gift to me. Thank You!

James Pilant

P.S. If you can correct my facts, please, always do so. I am going to be wrong in my opinions at one time or another, and that’s okay. But being wrong on the facts is not okay. So, please let me know immediately if my data is wrong.

Why Did The Democrats Get Wasted?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics

I don’t always agree with Greenwald but he is dead on in his analysis in this case. Over and over on television, it’s as if jobless and foreclosed on Americans simply don’t exist.

From Glenn Greenwald –

People are suffering economically and Democrats have done little about that. Beyond that, they failed to inspire their own voters to go to the polls. Therefore, they lost. By basing their power in Congress on Blue Dog dependence — rather than advocating for the views of their own supporters and implementing those policies — they failed, and failed resoundingly. Building their party around a large number of muddled, GOP-replicating corporatists not only creates a tepid and failed political image, but far worse, it prevents actual policies from being implemented that benefit large number of ordinary Americans. Democrats repeatedly refrained from advocating for such policies in deference to their Blue Dogs, failed to do much to alleviate the economic suffering of ordinary Americans, and thus got crushed. Anyone who thinks that Democrats lost because they were “too liberal” — rather than because Americans are suffering so much economically — is wildly out of touch, i.e., is a multi-millionaire cable TV personality who has spent decades wallowing in trite D.C. chatter.

It was American suffering that drove the voters.

No one at any time or any place told me they were voting against the Democrats because they had suddenly found a new political philosophy. People told me they wanted to vote against anyone in office anywhere, that they were all worthless, that they were all incompetent, (and most commonly) that they were all (insert seven or eight of the most vicious cuss words imaginable).

That’s not voter realignment unless you call wanting them all dead a political philosophy.

Americans want to be a vital concern for the government, not second to the banks, etc, etc,. but number one. They want help with their education, they want help finding jobs, they want government policies that keep jobs in the United States, they want a fair tax system.

Sometimes I tell people, friends and students, about some bizarre thing the government does (like allowing businesses to deduct the expenses of moving jobs overseas from their taxes – we pay for outsourcing). They ask me who they can write to, who they can e-mail or call.

I get to tell them the truth.

There is no one.

Every Senator and Representative in my state has voted to maintain those tax breaks and will continue to do so. There is no place to go. Not now, maybe not ever.

And if you have the foolish thought that an election is coming up in 2012 and you can get someone different. Well, the name of the candidate will be different, maybe the party affiliation will be different, but I can assure you they will vote to maintain those tax breaks.

American democracy does not work very well. There are only some issues that voting can effect.

Moving jobs overseas is a priority of both the Republicans and Democrats. They are both devoted the financialization of this nation and the destruction of its industrial basis.

There is nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no one to turn to. The door of the federal government is closed.

James Pilant

Benjamin Franklin, Business Ethics, And How To Present An Idea

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics

From the Benjamin Franklin biography by John Torrey Morse, Jr., page 39.

In another enterprise Franklin shrewdly enlisted the boon-companion element on his side, with the result of immediate and brilliant success. He began as usual by reading a paper before the Junto, and through this intervention set the people thinking concerning the utter lack of any organization for extinguishing fires in the town. In consequence the Union Fire Company was soon established, the first thing of the kind in the city. Franklin continued a member of it for half a century. It was thoroughly equipped and efficiently conducted. An item in the terms of association was that the members should spend a social evening together once a month. The example was followed; other companies were formed, and fifty years later Franklin boasted that since that time the city had never “lost by fire more than one or two houses at a time; and the flames have often been extinguished before the house in which they began has been half consumed.”

Franklin does not go out with an idea convinced in advance of its success. He carefully tests his ideas with a chosen audience. The Junto was an association he created of other capable young men. They came together to discuss ideas, exchange information, and to lobby for their interests. The idea for an organization to fight fires made abundant sense but he tested it in front of this chosen audience to gauge its reception.

The Junto gave him a testing ground for his ideas. He could get feedback in a safe environment. If his idea was not well thought out, it will not be reported. If successful, he can then take an idea which has passed muster in an intelligent practical organization and test it out in the community.

One of the things that gets us in trouble is pride. Franklin in his autobiography admits that vanity (pride) was key to much of his success. That he is able to recognize that and give it due credit is amazing. Most of us spend our lives lying about ourselves to everybody including and particularly ourselves. Pride has it proper place as Franklin realizes. But when you have to much you tend to over reach.

The idea for a fire company is so obviously good, it would have been easy to bypass the testing steps. It would have been easy just to expect the idea to sell itself. After all, isn’t everyone afraid of fire and hadn’t the city almost burned down twice within memory? But he still kept to the process of testing and development building a successful execution from the ground up.

Watch how Franklin takes even the best of his ideas and carefully works them into reality. How many of us once convinced of an idea can proceed intelligently and cautiously to build consensus for it? No, generally we tell everyone how great it is and reflect astonishment when disagreed with. We can learn from Franklin’s example.

There is certainly an ethical element in the level of respect he is demonstrating in this process for other opinions, the thoughts and ideas of the other members. He is recognizing the importance of these other individuals in the community. He is celebrating their importance, communicating clearly the importance of their thoughts and their support.

He doesn’t just sell an idea. He build allies, develops friendship and allows others to mature and develop by being his friends and associates.

Can you do that?

James Pilant

Pennies-Be-Gone: The Ethics of Rounding (via The Business Ethics Blog)

On By southwerkIn ethics

Chris MacDonald gets high marks from me. His writing is good all the time. And this one is one of his best.

Read about the ethics of the decline and fall of the American penny!

James Pilant

Pennies-Be-Gone: The Ethics of Rounding The always-useful Consumerist brings us this story, with a self-explanatory title: A Lone Dunkin' Donuts Sort Of Abolishes Pennies One donut shop is taking a stand against the bacteria-ridden zinc disks of suck that are pennies. Reader Tom sent us [a photo of a sign] from a store he recently visited. In a policy change that was probably born during an 8 AM rush, this franchise appears to be are rounding customer totals up or down to the nearest f … Read More

via The Business Ethics Blog

Benjamin Franklin, Business Ethics, Newspapers And Teaching

On By southwerkIn business ethics

From the John Torrey Morse, Jr. biography of Benjamin Franklin (pages 23-24)

But the famous almanac was not the only pulpit whence Franklin preached to the people. He had an excellent ideal of a newspaper. He got news into it, which was seldom done in those days, and which made it attractive; he got advertisements into it, which made it pay, and which also was a novel feature; indeed, Mr. Parton says that he “originated the modern system of business advertising;” he also discussed matters of public interest. Thus he anticipated the modern newspaper, but in some respects improved in advance upon that which he anticipated. He made his “Gazette” a vehicle for disseminating information and morality, and he carefully excluded from it “all libeling and personal abuse.” The sheet in its every issue was doing the same sort of work as “Poor Richard.” In a word, Franklin was a born teacher of men, and what he did in this way in these his earlier days gives him rank among the most distinguished moralists who have ever lived.

I, myself, am a teacher and a good one. Franklin is very good. He is fond of facts, fascinated with reason and inclined toward discussion, both intelligent and moderate.

But do not think for a moment that Franklin was not willing to be angry or unwilling to use strong language. He knew that civility is not a one way street. He was a leader in revolution, at times, a soldier and a master of spies.

We need Franklin’s example now, more than ever. Franklin believed in virtue, virtue ethics like those practiced by the Greeks. That system says that we do the right thing because it is a better way to live, that it has benefits and we profit by them.

Those benefits are generally internal, how we feel about ourselves, others, this life or the next one. But Franklin takes it to a place where we can see that you can be virtuous and effective, honest and successful, hard-working and prosperous. He takes virtue ethics and shows how when applied with diligence and intelligence, a balanced life is possible.

The Greeks of the Classical Age believed in the moderation in all things. I do not. Neither did Franklin.

However, we can certainly say that Franklin believed in moderation in most things and recommended such to others.

Let that be our lesson today.

James Pilant

500 Posts

On By southwerkIn business ethics

I have posted more than 500 times.

I could not have done without your encouragement and kindness.

My Thanks!

James Alan Pilant