We all have read satirical cartoons either on the internet or in print. They can either be very funny or very offensive depending on our beliefs. We all know of the recent terrorist attack in France against the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. These attacks were carried out in retaliation for printing images of the Muslim prophet Muhammed. Almost all major U.S. news outlets refuse to show the cartoons Charlie Hebdo published so as not to offend Muslims. The ethical problem is that these same media outlets have no problem showing cartoons or printing articles that are offensive to Christians, Jews, or any other religious group.
What is the media's ethical obligation to a particular group of people? Should they pick and choose who they will offend or should they offend no one? If they choose to offend no one they will have a limited amount of material that they can publish. Is that what free media stands for? The decision to not publish these cartoons has very little to do with ethical standards and a lot to do with cowardice. They are afraid of retribution. They will continue to publish cartoons mocking other religions because it is safe to do so.
I love the right to freedom of speech. I think it is an integral part of our culture and I would rather have someone say something that I don't agree with than not be able to say it at all. I believe that limiting criticism and offensive images against one religious group, but not all, is unethical. I don't care what a media outlet's policy is on ethics, but it needs to be applied equally.
Byers, D. (2015, January 14). Does free media have an obligation to Islam? Politico. Retrieved from
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/does-free-media-have-an-obligation-to- islam-201064.html
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
Wages in America
I like to pick topics that I don't have a definite opinion on. A letter from the NY times editor was addressing the fact that Mr. Obama had declared wages were on the rise and that the president's statement may not have been 100% truthful. This article points out that wages have only risen an average of 3 cents over the last three month period, which is the smallest increase in years.
The article also had a picture of protesting fast-food workers demanding higher pay. This is what really caught my attention, because I believe that people working in fast-food are ridiculous to think they deserve 15 dollars an hour. I read that the average EMT makes only about 16 dollars an hour and the average firefighter makes around the same. Both these careers require schooling. My wife has a Bachelor's degree and makes under 15 dollars an hour. There is no way that someone operating a fry-o-later or flipping burgers should make as much as emergency service personnel. There is a part of me that says these people didn't work hard enough to better their lives and they are reaping what they sowed.
The part of me with a heart empathizes with people trying to live off of near minimum wage. I imagine it must be pretty tough. I question if Corporate America has an ethical obligation to give their employees a decent wage? There is so much talk about ethical standards and corporate responsibility, but at the end of the day a corporation's number one goal is to make money for their shareholders. I fear a corporation will almost always choose the option that makes them the most money. Many good jobs have already been moved overseas and I have no doubt that one day these fast-food workers jobs will be automated to save money.
I wish the best for everyone, but I don't think workers will ever be able to force corporations to pay them more because the workers are so easily replaceable. Instead of protesting, these workers would better serve themselves by getting an education and a job that pays more.
Leonhardt, D. (2015, January 23). Letter from the editor: 2015's big question. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/upshot/letter-from-the-editor-2015s- big-question.html rref=upshot&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=header&action
=click&contentcollection=the%20upshot&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=0
The article also had a picture of protesting fast-food workers demanding higher pay. This is what really caught my attention, because I believe that people working in fast-food are ridiculous to think they deserve 15 dollars an hour. I read that the average EMT makes only about 16 dollars an hour and the average firefighter makes around the same. Both these careers require schooling. My wife has a Bachelor's degree and makes under 15 dollars an hour. There is no way that someone operating a fry-o-later or flipping burgers should make as much as emergency service personnel. There is a part of me that says these people didn't work hard enough to better their lives and they are reaping what they sowed.
The part of me with a heart empathizes with people trying to live off of near minimum wage. I imagine it must be pretty tough. I question if Corporate America has an ethical obligation to give their employees a decent wage? There is so much talk about ethical standards and corporate responsibility, but at the end of the day a corporation's number one goal is to make money for their shareholders. I fear a corporation will almost always choose the option that makes them the most money. Many good jobs have already been moved overseas and I have no doubt that one day these fast-food workers jobs will be automated to save money.
I wish the best for everyone, but I don't think workers will ever be able to force corporations to pay them more because the workers are so easily replaceable. Instead of protesting, these workers would better serve themselves by getting an education and a job that pays more.
Leonhardt, D. (2015, January 23). Letter from the editor: 2015's big question. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/upshot/letter-from-the-editor-2015s- big-question.html rref=upshot&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=header&action
=click&contentcollection=the%20upshot&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=0
Friday, January 16, 2015
Jackie Fortin's dilemma
One recent issue in my home state of Connecticut is one of the state having the right to force a 17 year-old girl to undergo treatment for her Hodgkin's lymphoma. This is a heated issue with valid points on both sides of the issue.
As it stands right now, the Supreme Court of Connecticut has given temporary custody of the girl to the Department of Children and Families. This is to ensure that the girl gets chemotherapy. Both the girl and her mother are opposed to this situation.
The girl's argument against receiving chemo is that she does not want to put poison in her body. Unfortunately for her, because she is not 18, the state does not recognize her as an adult capable of making her own decisions. The mother is not being allowed to maintain custody because by refusing treatment she is endangering the life of her child.
The girl has an 85% chance of survival if she receives chemo. While there is no set rate of survival if she chooses another form of treatment, the cancer will be fatal if not treated at all.This issue encompasses many questions. Should the state be able to force treatment against both the patient's and the parent's will? Will the girl be anymore capable of making a mature decision a few months from now when she turns 18? If a child can be criminally charged as an adult for a crime they commit, should they not also be treated as an adult when making medical decisions about their own bodies?
My mother was diagnosed with kidney cancer just over three years ago. Her five year survival rate was only 8%. She had a kidney removed, but she opted against chemo in favor of holistic therapy. As of right now the cancer has gone into remission. She had the right to do what she wanted regarding her treatment because of her age. Based on my mother's experience and listening to the girl's argument, I believe this girl should be considered old enough to pursue the treatment she wants.
Conversely, this situation reminds me a little of the trolley study and how people consider life valuable. 85% seems like a good rate of survival compared to an unknown quantity using other therapies. But 85 is not 100, and there is no guarantee any form of treatment will work. I will just wish this young woman the best of luck.
As it stands right now, the Supreme Court of Connecticut has given temporary custody of the girl to the Department of Children and Families. This is to ensure that the girl gets chemotherapy. Both the girl and her mother are opposed to this situation.
The girl's argument against receiving chemo is that she does not want to put poison in her body. Unfortunately for her, because she is not 18, the state does not recognize her as an adult capable of making her own decisions. The mother is not being allowed to maintain custody because by refusing treatment she is endangering the life of her child.
The girl has an 85% chance of survival if she receives chemo. While there is no set rate of survival if she chooses another form of treatment, the cancer will be fatal if not treated at all.This issue encompasses many questions. Should the state be able to force treatment against both the patient's and the parent's will? Will the girl be anymore capable of making a mature decision a few months from now when she turns 18? If a child can be criminally charged as an adult for a crime they commit, should they not also be treated as an adult when making medical decisions about their own bodies?
My mother was diagnosed with kidney cancer just over three years ago. Her five year survival rate was only 8%. She had a kidney removed, but she opted against chemo in favor of holistic therapy. As of right now the cancer has gone into remission. She had the right to do what she wanted regarding her treatment because of her age. Based on my mother's experience and listening to the girl's argument, I believe this girl should be considered old enough to pursue the treatment she wants.
Conversely, this situation reminds me a little of the trolley study and how people consider life valuable. 85% seems like a good rate of survival compared to an unknown quantity using other therapies. But 85 is not 100, and there is no guarantee any form of treatment will work. I will just wish this young woman the best of luck.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)