Download
1 / 17
E N D
Whistle Blowing Omar Ahmed Shaikh
Whistle Blowing • In March 2003, the U.K. was involved in a controversy regarding a civil servant declaring to a journalist that the Prime Minister's Office had 'glamourized' information in a dossier which would be later used as a reason to go to war with Iraq. Dr. David Kelly, a government expert on weapons of mass destruction, particularly in Iraq, admitted (in anonymity) to a BBC reporter that he felt that Prime Minister Tony Blair's advisors had exaggerated the threat Iraq posed to the western world in a dossier that had been presented by the security services.Kelly alleged that the document was 'doctored' to serve the government's political end. When the story broke, it caused great controversy, and the government carried out an investigation into who was behind these allegations. Once Dr. Kelly was found to be the source of the comments, his name was leaked to the press and certain elements from the civil service set out to destroy his professional reputation. Being in the eye of the political storm was too much pressure for the doctor, and a couple of weeks after the story first broke, he committed suicide. The after-shock of this affair has been severely felt in the U.K., with the government being heavily criticized over its presentation of the war (although discharged by an independent enquiry) but also having a hand in a whistle-blower taking his own life.
Whistle Blowing A Russian cardiologist said he feared dismissal and beating after phoning Vladimir Putin to say that an impressive hospital display for the premier was faked. And then, Putin called him back. Ivan Khrenov told Putin during a live call-in show Thursday that his bosses instructed doctors and nurses to show fake pay slips and pose as recovering patients surrounded by new equipment during the premier's November visit to a hospital in the central town of Ivanovo. Khrenov told Putin that the equipment was borrowed from other hospitals and the doctors were forced to say their salaries were about $1,000 a month — far less than their real income. Putin's visit to the hospital was nationally televised — just like the call-in show where Khrenov made his claims. Putin, who has been hobnobbing with ordinary Russians in similar sessions for years, ordered an investigation into a possible misuse of the $4,3 million the hospital has received. "What are you cheering at?" Putin asked the applauding audience in the television studio. "The art of the (hospital) managers or doctor's bravery?" If the misuse did happen, Khrenov told a Russian news agency Friday, he might face a beating or dismissal. "I will not be surprised if somebody meets me in a dark alley or I'll be forced to resign 'voluntarily,'" he told Interfax after regional officials called him "insane" and called him to a local prosecutor's office and health department for questioning. But his problems seem to have ended after Putin personally called him, Khrenov told the RIA news agency. Putin "said, 'We won't leave you in your trouble, we will help you, we know the whole situation, don't you worry,'" Khrenov was quoted as saying.
Whistleblowing & the Environment: the Case of Avco Environmental • ChantaleLeroux works as a clerk for Avco Environmental Services, a small toxic-waste disposal company. The company has a contract to dispose of medical waste from a local hospital. During the course of her work, Chantale comes across documents that suggest that Avco has actually been disposing of some of this medical waste in a local municipal landfill. Chantale is shocked. She knows this practice is illegal. And even though only a small portion of the medical waste that Avco handles is being disposed of this way, any amount at all seems a worrisome threat to public health. • Chantale gathers together the appropriate documents and takes them to her immediate superior, Dave Lamb. Dave says, "Look, I don't think that sort of thing is your concern, or mine. We're in charge of record-keeping, not making decisions about where this stuff gets dumped. I suggest you drop it." • The next day, Chantale decides to go one step further, and talk to Angela van Wilgenburg, the company's Operations Manager. Angela is clearly irritated. Angela says, "This isn't your concern. Look, these are the sorts of cost-cutting moves that let a little company like ours compete with our giant competitors. Besides, everyone knows that the regulations in this area are overly cautious. There's no real danger to anyone from the tiny amount of medical waste that 'slips' into the municipal dump. I consider this matter closed." • Chantale considers her situation. The message from her superiors was loud and clear. She strongly suspects that making further noises about this issue could jeopardize her job. Further, she generally has faith in the company's management. They've always seemed like honest, trustworthy people. But she was troubled by this apparent disregard for public safety. On the other hand, she asks herself whether maybe Angela was right in arguing that the danger was minimal. Chantale looks up the phone number of an old friend who worked for the local newspaper. • Questions for Discussion: • What should Chantale do? • What are the reasonable limits on loyalty to one's employer? • Would it make a difference if Chantale had a position of greater authority? • Would it make a difference if Chantale had scientific expertise?
Whistle Blowing Whistle blowing is the voluntary release of non public information, as a moral protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal and/or immoral conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest
Why study Whistle blowing • To answer the following questions • Is the exposure of corruption and mismanagement in government and industry the best way to correct these faults • Are there more effective ways to deal with them without requiring individuals to be more heroic personal sacrifices • Do employees have a right to blow the whistle? Even if they are acting in general public’s interest on the other hand they have an obligation to do whatever is being asked by the employer and to keep the information secret • Cases of whistle blowing show some serious conflicting obligations • Therefore it is very important to understand when is it morally permissible to blow the whistle
Whistle blowing • To say that some one has blown or is blowing the whistle it is necessary to have these conditions met 1. Can be done only by a member or former member of an organization • Difference is due to the fact the an employee obtains information as being a part of the organization for which he/she agrees to keep the information secret and act in the interest of the organization
Whistle blowing 2. There must be information. Publicly disagreeing with employer is not whistle blowing 3. The information is generally evidence of some significant kind of misconduct on the part of an organization or some of its members 4. The information must be released outside normal channels of communication and the information must be revealed in a way that can reasonable be expected to bring about a desired change. Merely passing on information is not whistle blowing
Whistle blowing 5. The release of information must be something that is done involuntarily, as opposed to being legally required 6. Whistle blowing must be undertaken as a moral protest
Conditions for justified whistle blowing 1. Is the situation of sufficient moral importance to justify whistle blowing? • E.g. How serious is the potential harm as compared to the benefit of using anti biotic 2. Do you have all the facts and have you properly understood their significance? • Most employees are unable to see the BIG PICTURE
Conditions for justified whistle blowing 3. Whistle blowing should be a last rather than first resort (have you tried proper channels?) 4. What is the best way to blow the whistle? • To whom should the information be revealed? • How much information should be revealed? • Should the information be revealed anonymously or by the identity of whistle blower? 5. What is my responsibility in view of my role in the organization? • Somebody might wish to blow the whistle for the sake of the company/own
Conditions for justified whistle blowing 6. What are the chances of success • sometimes whistle blower is not good enough, sometimes system is corrupted, some times employer is too powerful
Developing a company whistle blowing policy • Why would a company design a whistle blowing policy? • To prevent employees going public • Dealing misconduct internally • Prerequisites of whistle blowing policy • All complaints should be takes seriously and with confidentiality • Policy must be communicated • Investigations should be made and actions should be taken
Benefits and dangers of a policy • Companies might wish to continue to make profits rather than to stop harming society, but this will help them to avoid a situation where somebody blows the whistle, they may be able to take corrective actions earlier • No policy does not mean no whistle blowing • Firing whistle blowers and surviving legal threats give message to other employees but it does not mean that other whistle blowers will remain motivated
Benefits and dangers of a policy • An effective whistle blowing policy can make employees more committed to an ethical organization • Reporting each other environment may lead to mistrust and de-motivation
Components of a whistle blowing policy • An effectively communicated statement of responsibility • A clearly defined procedure for reporting • Well trained personnel to receive and investigate reports • A commitment to take appropriate action • A guarantee against retaliation/revenge
Conclusion • Whistle blowing is ethically permissible under certain carefully specified conditions
