Engaging Ethics Through Blogging

Engaging ethics through blogging has been interesting for me in these last nine weeks. I have enjoyed the project much more than I initially anticipated and have learned a great deal in the process. In an effort to pause and consider what I have learned, I create a top ten list of the things I learned while blogging about ethics over the last nine weeks:

10. I found the technology much easier to use than I anticipated.  I have to admit that I am not entirely new to blogging, but this go-round made an attempt to use more of the features available through ‘blogger’ and other links to technology. I have a love-hate relationship with technology in general and have found that sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult for me. I was overjoyed this wasn’t the case during this term and hope this confidence and experience can help me continue to learn and try more!

9. I found it fairly interesting to write about things that are interesting to me – but there is no way I’d want to be a professional blogger! I enjoyed this opportunity to blog about ethics because in some way the sky was the limit in regards to what I wrote about. As long as the topic related to ethics in public administration in some way, it was fair game. This freedom meant it was easy for me to find a topic that I could engage and enjoy writing about. With that said – I do not understand how professional bloggers do it! Unless you’re writing about personal experiences and you have an extraordinarily interesting family, I do not know how people have the time to have a life/job/hobby/whatever AND then also blog about it.

8. I enjoyed being able to add interest to my posts with photos. Since google has been “a thing,” I have found it fascinating that you can type anything or any name into the search bar and google (or any other search engine) will attempt to find a photo related to your search. Searching for photos related to this blog was fun and entertaining and lead to many sites on the internet and information I might not have found otherwise. I enjoyed finding everything from school projects to silly pictures and memes to serious political cartoons and info graphics.

7. Being able to link to articles and other sites is a huge benefit. Yes, the same information I covered in this blog could have been presented (in a more formal matter) in a research paper but one of the things that is so cool/helpful/obvious about the internet is how everything is connected. Because of the ease of using the technology, I could easily connect links on this blog to related content elsewhere on the internet. I think this adds interest and validity for readers.

6. Blogging made me want to read other blogs. It was nice to be able to read other blogs of students taking advantage of the same opportunity this term and compare writing styles, blog design, and content. So yes, I wanted to read more about ethics in public administration  - but I also found myself wanting to read other blogs about things I care about including foster care, adoption, non-profit work, social work in general, same-sex parenting, and other combinations of these! I found professional and non-professional blogs to be interesting and helpful in a variety of ways.

5. At the beginning of this term I realized I really needed to spend some time and energy deciding what kind of blog I wanted to write. As a result of the “skies the limit” freedom, I could have done a variety of things with this blog. I am glad I spent time on the front end thinking about formatting, style, and content so that I had a sort of road-map through the experience. I decided variety would be important to me in this experience and chose to write about a variety of topics from a variety of readings, movies, sites, and discussions.

4. Blogging helped me consider many aspects of public administration. I actually learned a lot about a variety of aspects of public administration and ethics as a result of this experience. I am sure that is the objective – but it happened!

3. Don’t be offended when no one reads the blog…So it was a strange feeling to write something that I was sure no one would actually read. There were some opportunities for me to share with friends, family, or colleagues that I was blogging about ethics, but for the most part I recognized no one was sitting at home anxiously waiting for my next post.

2…but assume they will. It was nice to have comments from students and others on several of my posts. It was an engaging conversation that helped me regain some energy about writing. I also learned a lesson about writing things and putting them on the internet that you’re not quite ready to be public information. Specifically, in one of my posts I mentioned my partner and I were planning to be married soon. That is something that people generally knew but no one knew we were planning a sort of elopement/destination wedding with just a few close friends and family. That ceremony took place not long after I wrote about it on the blog. Because of the connections between this blog and my gmail account, people who know my email account could easily see and read my blog. I hadn’t thought about that! I know that nothing is private – especially posted on the internet – and now know to never assume no one is reading it!

And the number one thing I learned through this experience of engaging ethics and public administration through blogging is…

1. I enjoyed blogging through this process much more than I would have enjoyed a research paper!

At-Will Employment

This week I had the opportunity to do some reading related to at-will employment – specifically as it relates to ethics in public administration. I was delighted to have an opportunity to read more specifically about this topic because it was something I knew very little about – but hear about on a regular basis at work. Until I began working at my current place of employment I am sure I had never heard the phrase “at-will employer.” I heard it thrown around – almost in a joking manor – not long after I started working. I heard others at the non-profit where I work say things like “well I can quit anytime I want to since they’re an at-will employer” or “I wouldn’t even have to work two weeks since they’re at-will.” Now, I don’t want to give the wrong impression – I work at a lovely place where hardly anyone ever quits! These conversations usually take place on Monday morning – or Tuesday morning after a long weekend – when no one really wants to be at work. I began to understand a little more about the phrase and meaning when I began to supervise others two years ago. As a supervisor I am responsible for things that typically come with a supervisory role. I have to do annual evaluations and also handle disciplinary matters when they arise. In instances where we have had to address issues with employees, I have heard other managers and directors talk about the importance of documenting things as they happen – but then at the same time make reference to the fact that “Georgia is an at-will state so that isn’t totally necessary.”

So – since most of what I knew and thought I understood about at-will employment has very little to do with the actual reasons for and history behind the concepts I was thankful for some better information.

I found the history of employment at-will doctrine to be interesting and helpful in fully understanding. Because my experience (and I would imagine my generation) I would never had made the connections between merit-based civil service and at-will employment. I do see how history and changes in culture and priorities have led to the role of a public employee being no different than others found in business.

The reading I did also emphasized applying the ethics triad to at-will employment. Considering how at-will employment doctrine might be viewed through three different ethical lenses shines new light on application, pros, and cons. When applying the triad one would consider results related to (1) a rules based approach, (2) a results based approach, and (3) virtue based ethics. It is important to consider the emphases of each of the three parts of the triad when thinking of pros and cons of at-will employment – as it is important when using the triad to consider any issue. Each of the three approaches holds arguments for and against at-will employment. The material I was reading suggests that even after considering all three pieces of the triad it is hard to see how an employment doctrine that can cause harm could be considered ethical. The lack of responsibility to the employee on the part of the employer places many things at risk.

In conclusion, this week I learned a great deal more about at-will employment doctrine but then end realize I have a great deal of learning left to do. I will spend some time reading and learning and asking others and trying to see how these ideas can be best applied – or ignored -  depending on my conclusions!

Ethics and Elected Officials

This week I’ve had some time to reflect on ethics and public officials. I will be the first to admit that politics isn’t my thing. I am frustrated with the polarization that takes place in our contemporary political environment.  I don’t have cable TV and could not care less about most of the talking heads and the 24-hour a day news stations!

I think most of my apathy comes from frustration that nothing ever seems to get done when all of the time spent discussing politics and politicians is spent looking at the negative. I think individuals end up spending their time on the defense instead of working on anything. Politicians – especially presidents – have been defined by the unethical choices they make. I am in no way excusing this behavior or poor choices, but suggesting that a little more attention be paid to the good choices folks are making and the good things happening as a result of those choices. (I also recognize that having this attitude is sometimes used as an excuse for people to do nothing and not be involved in the process. I am involved – but choose to spend the majority of my time and energy elsewhere.)

I do think that an interesting statement was made in the reading about ethics and elected officials I did this week. The idea stated is that technically a broken promise is not the same thing as a lie but “promise keeping” is an important principle and breaking a promise suggests one is untrustworthy. The qualification made was that if the promise is broken because of something out of the promise-makers control, it is not a lie, but if is broken for no good reason, it is a lie.

Kind of reminds of the difference in the church’s understanding of sins of “omission” and sins of “commission.” Sometimes we do “wrong” by doing and sometimes we do “wrong” by not doing. 

Also reminds of a time when I was about 9 years old. My brother and I had been messing with each other while my grandmother was watching. He is two years younger than I am and was an easy target at the time. I took something from his room and ran to the end of the hall with it. He came running after me and as he got hear me I held up one leg and he ran directly into my foot at an inopportune place! He began crying and saying I had kicked him. I tried to reason with my grandmother and tell her that I had not kicked him – that he had run into my foot. My grandmother in her infinite wisdom helped me understand that in that moment, what technically happened did not matter. What mattered was that my brother was hurt and that it had happened because of a choice I made. If I remember correctly I spent the rest of the night in my room thinking about that choice alone with no one or nothing to play with!

I do understand the above statement and sentiment about the difference between breaking promises and directly lying – and I do understand that sometimes promises are made with the best intention of keeping them and aren’t kept by no fault of the promise-maker – so the distinction is necessary. I also understand that sometimes people use those “qualifications” and grey areas to get away with things that aren’t right.

It was interesting this week to also read about and consider the Rickertt v. Public Disclosure Commission case. Read more about the case here: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003924720_webfirstamendment04m.html and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickert_v._Public_Disclosure_Commission

Obviously I support the first amendment and our right to free speech. So on the surface I understand that yes, political candidates have the right to say whatever they like in the process of campaigning. I am disappointed in the fact that many times this includes small untruths and even blatant lies. This leaves the people not the government to be the final arbiters of truth – which ultimately I agree with – I just wish was not necessary.

As I have mentioned before, often ethics is not considered until after a blatant or very public violation. I did however appreciate the mention of moral criteria scholars have developed that can be considered reasonably expected from politicians. (This list is found in the chapter on Ethics and Elected Officials in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Public-Service-Individual-Institutional-Responsibilites/dp/1452274134 )

Integrity – having incorruptible honesty, playing by the rules, not being unduly influenced by friendship and family in conducting affairs of the government, leading by example

Civility – respecting one’s coworkers, displaying sportsmanlike conduct

Upholding principles – drawing on one’s religious or philosophical moral values, taking the high road, following one’s convictions, avoiding judgment of one’s opponents

Sincerity – being forthright, avoiding hypocrisy and cynicism, not having a hidden agenda

Political sensitivity – seeking the good of the nation as a whole, responding to the needs of all citizens, showing compassion to those in need, being concerned about issues and problems

Honor – acting to bring credit and worth to one’s work, profession, and institution

Conviction – having strong and consistent beliefs and the courage to stand by one’s values while being open to new information and change where warranted

Michael Josephson suggested “The Six Pillars of Character” to include:

• trustworthiness
• respect
• responsibility
• fairness
• caring
• citizenship. 

It is suggested that these core values – with those listed above – can be used as a yardstick for gauging the ethical behavior of elected and appointed officials.

It would be nice to see this yardstick used more often and not only by political opponents trying to make others look bad! How could we as a people demand this kind of standard be used to judge ethical behavior? How can we reward ethical behavior? How can have more positive stories? How can we discourage the glamorization of the unethical when it comes to elected officials?

Just and Unjust Laws

This week I had the opportunity to read and consider Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” and engage if from an ethics perspective. I had read the letter before in school but not since a seminary education introduced me to the “father of the church” including Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Reading this letter with that background and considering the ethical ideas of just and unjust laws was like reading it through new lenses.

The works of Aquinas and Augustine are foundation to the understanding of Christian ethics and folks have been considering them for a long time. I found this article from the International Journal of Ethics that discussed Augustine’s ethics and was published in 1903! http://www.jstor.org/stable/2376453?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I also found a student’s writing on Augustine and ethics and she puts it nicely:

“Augustine was almost always doing ethics; his most basic questions concerned the nature of the good and how to seek it. Yet he was not an ethicist, insofar as it is construed as an autonomous inquiry. In asking what the good is, how it relates to us, and how we should relate to it Augustine’s thought was at once metaphysical, theological, psychological, ontological, - and given his reliance on scripture – exegetical.” (For more go to: http://www.academia.edu/2519976/Saint_Augustine_Augustine_of_Hippo_An_Introduction_to_his_Ethical_Thought_)

So Augustine didn’t set out to necessarily be an ethicist and yet we are considering his work as it relates to ethics. I think the same think is true with Martin Luther King Jr. He did not set out to be an ethicist – but has become a touchstone for those considering the ethical nature of nonviolent civil disobedience.

MLK cites Augustine (as well as Thomas Aquinas and Martin Buber) early in his response to the clergymen who sent him a letter asking him to slow down his work and stop breaking the law.

MLK admits the paradox and recognizes that it is strange to be asking people to follow some laws and then also asking them to directly disobey others. He makes a clear distinction between just and unjust laws. MLK describes a just law as a human-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of god and an unjust law is a code or law that does not. Laws that uplift humanity and human personality are just and laws that degrade humanity and personhood are unjust. In his Letter, MLK goes on to give several examples of how he sees just and unjust laws playing out in the fight against segregation.

In his Letter, he makes the argument that “segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful…So I can urge men to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.”

King is making the argument against segregation from a variety of standpoints to appeal to his specific audience and the audience beyond.

Considering the premise that there are just and unjust laws has been interesting this week in my corner of the world. Just across the river – I can see it from my office – is the state of Alabama. Last month, a federal court ruling declared the state’s ban on same-sex unions was illegal and violated the U.S. Constitution. This move made same-sex marriage legal in Alabama. In response, Alabama’s chief justice Roy Moore told probate judges in all 67 counties in Alabama not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples essentially telling the federal government to stay out of it. This made some interesting and confusing things happen this week. Some counties in Alabama began issuing the licenses Monday while others refused. The decisions seemed to be made by individual judges and others in the county offices. Several county offices stopped issuing marriage licenses all together. So to avoid discriminating against some – no one is able to get married!

So what does this have to do with unjust and just laws?

I do admit that I have a dog in this fight and strong opinions. I am engaged to be married my partner and will be doing so in a few short days. We’re having to travel to another state to be legally wed and then will come back with a legal document that is not recognized in the state where we live. I could list the reasons why this is unfortunate and harms my family – but those are all spelled out somewhere else. And I think most of us recognize the world is changing. The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on same-sex marriages at the federal level by the end of the year and most people think they will rule favorable to this cause.

So what about just and unjust laws?

We look back on the civil rights movement of the 60’s and are able to say “these people were ethically making good choices” and “these people ethically made poor choices.”  We can say even though these folks broke the law, ultimately they did the right thing. So what will history say about this movement happening right now? What will history tell us? Who is acting ethically? Who is not?

In considering this, I saw a very interesting article from TIME about how the battle for civil rights related to same-sex marriage is not the same as the civil rights movement in the 60’s. It is worth the read. Here is an excerpt:

"The comparison is an easy one to make, and numerous outlets drew the connection on Monday, in the aftermath of Moore’s attempt to halt same-sex marriages in his state. Facing integration of the University of Alabama in 1963, which had been mandated years earlier by Brown v. Board of Education, Wallace tried to block the change and was met by National Guard troops. This week, Moore defied a federal District Court ruling by ordering local probate judges not to license same-sex marriages, a bold challenge to the established principle of federal supremacy over state courts. In short, both Wallace and Moore relied on states’ rights claims to defy the federal government’s demand for social change."

(For the whole article see: http://time.com/3703155/george-wallace-roy-moore/)

Engaging Ethics in the Workplace

This week I have had the opportunity to consider how I engage ethics in the workplace. It is clear that ethical behavior is not just based on individual choice. Ethical behavior is also social and collective. I understand that some people have a hard time accepting organizational factors because of the emphasis it takes away from personal moral responsibility, but the organizational factors cannot be denied. The idea that we have to have one or the other – organization or individual – is a false dichotomy. Identifying that there are organizational factors does not negate the importance of individual choice and behavior. This is a both/and situation.

Organizations are made up of people and those people are put in environments as representatives of those organizations where they have to make decisions. At times it may be hard for individuals to discern what the most appropriate behavior or choice might be. Employers and leaders of organizations are responsible for the conduct of their employees and the choices that are made and therefore have a responsibility at the front-end to create an environment where ethical behavior is the expectation and the norm. Creating this environment is challenging – no doubt – but so is directly affecting individual behavior.

As I considered organizational ethics, I decided to ask around the non-profit where I work about a code of ethics. It turns out, we have a code of ethics we sign when we start our employment. We sign it at the same time that we sign the employee handbook. In my six years here I have never heard it mentioned again. I asked other co-workers if they knew anything about it and none did! Some remembered signing it – but no one could remember anything about it. Of course our HR person knew and the director knew- but no one else. I did get a copy of the code and used it to consider some information on organizational ethics.

Some background: The organization where I work is a non-profit community center that has been serving the same community for nearly 80 years. We have 8 program areas serving mainly women and children of all ages – literally from 5 to 105! We have around 30 employees with a mostly flat organizational structure. There is a very active Board of Directors and an Executive Director who answers to the board. Then there are four of us who are considered supervisors. We all supervise a different number of people who range from 4 hour a week employees to full-time. We all have a variety of educational and ministry background depending on our positions. We are located in west Georgia in a city of nearly 200,000.

Our Code of Ethics is made up of twenty bullet points mostly beginning with the words “I will…” or “I will not…”  Most of the points have to do with virtue ethics - personal rectitude and being a person of integrity. Examples of those statements include: “I will act in accordance with standards of professional integrity” and “I will accurately represent my education, training, experience and competencies as they relate to my profession.”

A few of the statements could be based in duty ethics including: “I will abide by Open Door Community House, Inc. policies related to public statements” and  “I will not engage in or condone any form of harassment or discrimination.” And there were a couple of statements that could be evaluated by a results-based approach.  One of those statements reads: “If I know that a colleague has violated ethical standards, I will bring this to my colleague’s attention. If this fails, I will report that activity to the director.”

I can think of several things that might make it easier to consider ethics in my workplace. The first suggestion would be for employees to be reminded of this code! If this is something we’re intended to follow and pay attention to, it is important we know it exists! There are several practical ways I can imagine using to remind employees of the code and why it is important.

I also think there are some points that seem vague and some that seem very specific. The vague ideas need to be clarified and made relevant to the work employees are doing. I think it would be helpful to spend time talking about how the points mentioned in the code of ethics could directly relate to the choices made and work done by employees. It might even be helpful to guide employees in some sort of case study analyses considering ethics in a variety of situations. The very specific items make me wonder if some of the things were added because of specific circumstances that either happened here at this organization or at another local or similar place. It would be helpful to know the history of our code of ethics – where it came from and when changes have been made.

It is clear that organizations have culture and ethics are a part of that culture. It is the responsibility of leadership to model and cultivate that culture, but the responsibility of everyone to participate in making ethical choices that contribute to an ethical organization. 

I thought this was an interesting info-graphic. 

Source: http://www.ocregister.com/jannorman/strong-413335-ocregister-http.html

Virtue Ethics

This week I had the opportunity to read and reflect on an important individual-centered approach to ethics  - one that shifts the focus from cognitive philosophies to virtue theory and includes a shift from the “head” to the “heart.”

Considering virtue ethics reminds us that ethics is just as much about developing the right character as it is about following the right procedure. Virtue ethics acknowledges behind every action is a person and the rules and results cognitive ethics is concerned with are best considered in the content of individual character. When considering virtue ethics one answer to the “What to do” question has less to do with rules and results and more to do with what kind of person you are. Virtue ethics becomes a way of life and not a checklist to consider.

One of the interesting concepts that I think comes out of virtue ethics is the idea that individuals cannot be understood apart from their community. George Matthew Adams says: “There is no such thing as a self-made man. We are made up of thousands of others. Everyone who has ever done a kind deed for us or spoken one word of encouragement to us, has entered the make-up of our character and of our thoughts, as well as our success.”

I love this idea! It speaks to the value of community and the ways we need one another. I do wonder how the reverse is true. How do the unkind deeds and words of discouragement and hindrance affect the development of our character? Where do we see positive examples of this in our world and where do we see the not so great examples?

As a foster parent I am connected to lots of people who parent children who have experienced awful things. I have a friend who is currently fostering two teenage children who before moving to her house literally lived in a tent in the woods. They have no memory of ever living with electricity or running water. They were being raised by parents and friends who were evading the federal government for a number of reasons. It has been challenging for this family to help these kids understand how many things work in the world – many practical things like school and televisions – but also things related to character. I wonder, internally, what sense of virtue and ethics those two had and how that has developed or changed as they have been in a different living situation and have been exposed to a larger community.

The reading on virtue ethics also highlighted several people as examples of those who display strong virtue and character and are thought to be leading based on a strong sense of “heart” ethics. One of those individuals is Cory Booker.

Cory Booker is a former city council member and mayor of Newark, New Jersey and was elected to the US Senate in 2013. He has shown evidence of serving the public interest with a hands-on tactic to addressing human problems.

You can read more about Cory Booker by googling or clicking here for his wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker

From the beginning of his political career Booker has proven that he believes actions speak louder than words. As a city council member in the late 1990’s Booker lived in a tent in the middle of his district and went on a hunger strike in order to increase pressure on the police to crack-down on drug related crime. In his first year as mayor of Newark he did ride alongs with police officers on night patrols and stayed with them until the early morning hours.  He says this gave a message of solidarity: “I wanted to show people that I’m willing to work as hard or harder than anybody in city hall to get the word out to police officers that I was challenging them to show my level of commitment.” Best of all - - this worked! Newark experienced an increase in police productivity and a falling crime rate.

Booker has also experienced the cost of integrity as well. In a TV interview he expressed his feelings about Obama’s negative political campaigning which triggered backlash from fellow Democrats. He retracted his statement but stands by his convictions to the type of political climate that is fostered by negative campaigning.

Book has said “My mom used to say that who you are speaks so loudly that I can’t hear what you say.” This idea sums up his philosophy and points to his emphasis and understanding of virtue ethics.

I first learned of Cory Booker when he received national attention for doing a “food stamp challenge.” Booker agreed to live and eat for one week on what the average food stamp recipient receives in one week. He tweeted and blogged about the experience. The group I currently work with has adopted this idea as well and encouraged out participants in Poverty Awareness Week to take a similar challenge as well. You can see more about his experience here:

Ethics in Film

This week I have had the opportunity to view three movies and consider their ethical dimensions.

One of the movies, Changing Lanes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264472/) tells the story of what happens one day in New York when a young lawyer and a businessman have an automobile accident and their mutual road rage turns into an all-out feud.

This movie perfectly epitomized the line from a Sir Walter Scott poem that suggests “What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” 

Throughout the movie both men make choices resulting in horrible and life-altering outcomes for the other. They both make selfish choices of revenge not only to get what they want but purposefully to harm the other. The movie ends with a sense of resolution and that although the terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad day has taken place, both men might actually be in a better place as a result. This brought up major questions for me about consequentialism. Does the film suggest that if the actions of the day resulted in morally positive outcomes the actions are therefore good? It is something I am still pondering.

The second movie I watched was the classic To Kill a Mockingbird (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056592/?ref_=nv_sr_1).  

My parents only watch the old movie channel because they can’t stand commercials and this movie was on this week when I stopped by their house. I had the opportunity to see the end of the film again when Boo – err Arthur Radley is the hero and saves Jim and Scout. 

I thought about how the movie is often heralded as a film that deals with ethical choices around race  - and indeed that’s why the film was playing this week just days after Martin Luther King’s birthday. 

But also thought about the plethora of other observations one could make about parts of the film that have little to do with race. For example – the line that gives the movie it’s title occurs at the end and deals understanding Arthur’s situation and mental capacities. Here’s the clip: http://www.anyclip.com/movies/to-kill-a-mockingbird/understanding-and-thanks/

Coincidently I also read an article when reading about how film portrays ethics in general that discussed how movies portray lawyers that mentioned Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. The article stated: 

     Not since Atticus Finch have lawyers been able to take ethical cues from lawyers

     portrayed in the movies. After all, screen writers get paid big bucks to ensure that lawyers in

     movies face issues that will entertain, not enlighten. But sometimes the lawyers in movies are

     faced with the same types of ethical issues that real practitioners face. What choices do celluloid

     lawyers make when confronted with ethical dilemmas from real life? It is fair to say that the

     Hollywood choices are not reliable guides for real lawyers. 

(More from the article can be found here: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/labor_law/meetings/2008/ac2008/089.authcheckdam.pdf)

Considering how Changing Lanes portrays lawyers I see the truth in this statement! 

This clip from Changing Lanes gives a small example of the kind of portrayal lawyers get in film. In this clip Banek (the younger man) is hearing from an older partner in his firm about how he feels about a client and the truth about a case. 

Banek is faced with a choice. Now, I am not an attorney and do not know the kinds of choices they are faced to make on a daily basis but I see how most lawyers we see on TV of film are put into situations like this one – to entertain – more than enlighten.

The third movie I watched this week was My Sister’s Keeper (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1078588/?ref_=nv_sr_1).

I was interested to watch the film after reading the book many years ago when it first was published. 

This film also presents several ethical issues but primarily focuses on a young woman (who is 11 in the film) who wants to be medically emancipated from her parents so she no longer has to undergo dangerous medical procedures to try and save her sister’s life. In the film we learn this girl, Anna, was conceived and brought into this world with the clear purpose of being a donor for her sister, Kate. She has donated bone marrow, stem cells and is about to undergo a kidney transplant when the film ends.

This film was interesting to me in light of the recent news of a Connecticut teen who was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma last year and did not want to receive chemo. After discussion with her parents they agreed she would not receive the treatments. At this point the DCF stepped in and took Cassandra into their custody and forced her to undergo chemo and other procedures against her will. In an op ed piece Cassandra recently wrote she described the experience as a continuous nightmare and stated she cared about the quality of her life and not just quantity.

More about the story here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/9/cassandra-c-teen-forced-to-take-chemotherapy-i-am-/

These movies together and separate gave me the opportunity to think through issues and other ethical concerns I might not otherwise I have thought about this week. It goes to show that ethics is not something removed from life or who we are but is something that is all around is – only waiting for us to engage.