Ethics

Business ethics is the basic understanding that is being perceived by the employees for choosing the right or wrong. It prescribes the individuals behavior in the organization or the work place. Business ethics shows the type of behavior that an organization or a business entity should emulate and put more emphasis on, this shows the in written and unwritten values principles and codes that the organization should adopt.

In the current business world people are obsessed with some of the arrogant and irresponsible behaviors that are motivated by the need for profit maximization this is the most important function of any business for its stakeholders. The reason for all these mainly comes from the issue of psychological egoism. This theory does not necessarily mean that human beings are usually fond of behaving selfishly, but it on the other hand means that human beings are always striving towards the satisfaction of their own self-interest that are exclusive of the other partys interest (Alexie, 2006). Nowadays, the issues of compassion, love, friendship and the desire for social approval have become the least approved in the business setup.

It is seen that the markets will not operate without the ethical and moral behavior in the organization. The aspect of profit maximization for the benefit of the shareholders has become to be termed as an individualistic and unsustainable model in the business environment. This is because it ignores the aspect of fairness and justice that should be the basics of t he organization.

The stakeholders model suggests that the maximization of the wealth of the stakeholders should be the ultimate goal for the business, its corporations are supposed to be the managed to finally lead to the benefit of all the stakeholders who are mainly the employees, owners, suppliers, customers, and the communities (Alexie, 2006). This is seen as to being insufficient enough for its functions, because this model does not recognize sufficiently the issue of human beings as having a united consideration as compared to the reciprocal interest of their own.

There is a way that the organizations have gone too far to the extent of considering the employees as only the contributors of the bottom line and not as human beings that possess rights and responsibilities. In the contrary it treats human beings as a cannon fodder that can be used and discarded.

Technology is another issue that has been reflected so much on the issue of the ethics in business. This increase in the global communication of the information technology has led to the merging of the markets and thus allowing the financial institutions to be able to do their trading more easily and cheaply. This has led to the separation of the families due to the limited space for the reflection for the family. This is because people are left with a limited time for the family also less time to be able to contemplate for the family as the people are being caught up with the hysterical pace in the work place (Alexie, 2006).

According to the business ethics, it means that people should be loyal to the organization, but this is basically due to the main reason being the fear for the authorities. In addition to that in many societies, ethics is based on the religions system of the place. These religious systems differ from one society to another, and also in other areas they are not practiced and therefore have got little influence on how people behave and on other places that use the system there is a greater influence on their behaviors. Due to this factor, the business may not adapt them to their system of corporate management. Therefore there will be no use to adopt the ethics since they may have less or no impact on the organization.

The business morality is neutral therefore, the issue of the firm having a common responsibility of making profits for its stakeholders is not essential because the factor that undermines the business from making profit is the need to be able to stay within the countrys laws, this is because if it breaks the law the stakeholders and the company will be fined and punished (Alexie, 2006).

On the side of the customers relations to the company, the customers have a preference to deal with companies that have a strong ethical profile. This gives a condition that a company should be abiding with the ethical codes at all times and in particular to all adverse conditions. If for instance the company that is seen to be ethical is on the other hand seen to be betraying its codes, then the results will be that there will be a greater damage to the company that had never claimed these ethical standards in the first place. This is because the customers will be disappointed and due to their nature they do not easily forgive. Therefore as a result they will be willing to transfer their loyalty to a different competitor and thereby the business will fall.

From the past, business has been essentially a struggle in the market for which only the fittest will be able to survive. This shows that, the consideration and entertaining the interests of others will essentially mean that this will jeopardize the chances of survival of the organization in the industry. Therefore, the entertainment of these ethical issues will mean that the business competitiveness and the chances of survival will lower to some extent (Alexie, 2006). This goes by the myth that the business success and ethics are at the opposite ends of the scale. It states that a business will either be ethical and be unsuccessful or on the other hand be unethical and be successful.

The myth states that although the unethical behavior is not accepted on the organization, its effects are not so much seriously harmful to the society. This issue is perceived to be as a bad thing to the society but it may on a different perspective be not be a bad thing either. This is because, thought it affects the society many ways, it only affects a particular portion of the whole society but not everyone. Therefore, this shows that even if the firm does not use some ethical principles, it may only have few negative implications to the society and the firm as a whole.

In some areas of operation, the environment does not necessitate the norm of behaving ethically. Therefore, behaving ethically for the benefit of the society and less benefits for the firm may not be essential. According to the same issue, it is viewed that is the majority of a particular environment does not have the ethical values or the ethical values are not their norms, then there will not be a difference for the company to be able to make an effort to turn things around (Alexie, 2006). This goes with the saying that, a person should do whet others do in a particular environment even if it is unethical according to the moral behavior.

Different businesses do not have similar corporate structures. Therefore, it will not be beneficial for one company to use and provide the watertight ethical rules that are used by a different organization because it may not apply to the company. There are different general guidelines that are used to help managers for the assessment of the ethical implications of their decisions and behavior that they may apply in the structures (Alexie, 2006). These guidelines may be as follows they should use a framework that obeys the law, they should tell the truth, they should show respect for people, they should stock to the golden rule that states that you should do to other what you want to be done, they should practice participation for all employees, and above all, they should do no harm to any body.

It is not necessarily that a company should put in place the ethical standards for its employees therefore, a company should take the ethical guidance position to a much further step. This is aimed at maintaining the setting standards to be able to evaluate the behaviors of the business in goodwill. Measures should therefore, be put in place in order to prevent and control the unethical behavior in the organization. The legislation and the regulations may be imposed to be able to facilitate the control. These can be achieved internally by the use of the setup of the management structures and the policies that can minimize the ethical failures within the organization (Alexie, 2006).

The issue of survival for the fittest in the business world also has been discussed further. Some businesses engage themselves in the unethical practices for the sake of their survival. Some of these practices are common and well practiced. There is the dog eat dog myth, this myth states that due to the high competition in the business world there is a need for one business to be surviving on the expense of another one. This is because for a business that tries to accommodate the interests of another business will never be successful. That business will unsuccessfully be accommodating the interests of another business at its own expense. On the issue of ethnicity, those businesses that try to be so much ethical will end up weakening their positions due to the opening up of the gaps that may be used by other dogs to attack them.

The issue that, ethics have no place in the business has given the multinational companies a complex issue in their operations. This is because the decision making that is aimed at ethics is never profitable as compared to the choices that do not embrace the issue the ethical element. There has been an inherent belief that, the nature of prominent and successful businesses sometimes does not follow the lack of ethics in their visions for better profit making (Alexie, 2006). For one to be able to come up with this decision there has to be some recognition for the ethical making processes of many companies and also the reflection on the fiscal, organizational, and operational implications on the perceived outcomes if the opposite choices are to be made. On the same issue consideration should be made on the morality and the progression of the moral behaviors on the business operations and their implications for the companies to expand to the multinational levels.

It is however, perceived that, ethical choices are not always the most sound business decisions that a company can rely on. For example a pharmaceutical may discover that they could develop a drug that can end the sickness of blindness in many people but there will not be any financial benefit derived from it. In addition to that the costs that were to be incurred were to be very high (Alexie, 2006). The pharmaceutical may choose either to recognize a moral suffering and produce the drug however costly, or on the other hand neglect the moral obligation and stop producing the drug but produce others that are have a benefit to the firm.

According to these two cases the first pharmaceutical did not practice its obligation of benefiting their stakeholders and also to represent them in their own interests in the best way so far. This might cause a conflict between the interests of those outside the corporate structure and the shareholders, employees and the administrators of the company. This brings us to be able to understand the underlying reason as to why the ethical choices are not applied freely in the business structure of many organizations.

On a different perspective, if the pharmaceutical was in favor of the drug production he would also be committing an unethical decision on the side of the shareholders and the standard of behavior that exists between them as per their contractual agreement. Under this argument, since the corporations are institutions that are economical, to apply the moral standards those are at the expense of their revenues and that can prove a risk of the underscores will be very hard on these organizations.

A challenge enters to the multinational companies that often have their branches in many parts of the globe. They are prone to entering different communities that have varied standards for business operations and in their moral standards that eventually determine their ethical behaviors in general (Alexie, 2006). As these companies pursue their expansion as a means of reducing their costs in the long run with less legal requirements, the question of the ethical moral standards is the most problem to their management policies that they can choose.

In most cases most multinational companies enter into the expansion into other companies with the major aim of taking the advantage of lower taxes, fewer legal and social constraints. Therefore, they enter into these markets with a small concern for the moral and ethical practices for the operations for their business and organizations. This means that for them to survive in these businesses they must be able to adapt to these environmental moral practices as their ethical standards (Alexie, 2006).

The greatest concern for the business ethics is that, the ethics of the business may not be determined by community in which the multinational business may be expanding to rather these organizations may even not look at the places they expanding to but their ethical choices may reflect on the on what is the best economic interest of the company is. Therefore, business ethics must not look or focus on the issues that affect the third party but also it must take into consideration on the actions that negates the passive process of allowing harm to happen. For example a company may not pursue the ethical choice or take an action because if they may not have taken the action, they will be allowing harm to occur.
In order to determine whether the ethical behavior of the business has got any impacts on the business financial status, we need to be able to determine the effects of the ethical and unethical behavior that occur both internally and externally. The internal workers can be the also be affected by these ethical issues and in the long run can act in various ways (Alexie, 2006). This means that the production efficiency, the distribution and the exchange functions are to be influenced by the firms ethical issues that underlie the organization.

To start with, in the internal organization, the law and the governmental regulations usually determine the ethical behavior, the stakeholders, that are external to the firm can also affect the financial status of the business due to their influence on the firms decision making process. The suppliers, customers and the stockholders are likely to react directly through the buying and the selling activities, and this has an impact in that influences the press, local communities and the society. Therefore, to be able to answer the relationship between the ethical and financial position of the organization will require the organization to analyze the measurements of the effects of the ethical or unethical activities if all groups that affect the organization and that each and every organization should take a practice that best fit its corporate and operational structure (Alexie, 2006).

To be ethic in business or not means that the organizational corporate structure is able to take consideration and be aware of the possible consequences of the actions of the firm before they are to take place, making the reasoned moral judgments about the consequences, and choosing the actions that are most important to the organizational structure and that can cause less harm to both parties of the organizational structure. To be able to do this analysis the corporate structure should be able to ask itself questions such as what is right from wrong, what is or what ought to be, how to be able to get out from what is ought to be, and what is our motivation.

In conclusion to this issue the determination of immoral judgments or ethical and unethical issues in knowingly deciding the right decision for your organization that affects it in the long run (Alexie, 2006). Some ethical issues can be seen as being unethical to some other organizations and even to the regulatory authorities. On the other hand some other unethical issues may be considered to be ethical to the surrounding community or environment. Therefore, it is basically important for the organization to try to meet the interests of both parties of the organization. Profit maximization being the major concern of any corporate structure should be analyzed keenly for the determination of the ethical policies that govern the day to day activities of the firm.

There are many controversial debates that are bombarding the society and there is one that has caused division over families, friends and lawmakers the aspect of the morality of medical marijuana. It is a known fact that marijuana has been used as a medicinal drug and has been prescribed by many in order to stimulate the appetite, treat asthma and relieve pain. Despite the advantages of the said drug, there are still several questions lingering in the minds of many people as to the legality as well as the morality of marijuana usage (Roth). Sick and suffering individuals contend that the use of marijuana eases their pain and the side effects of their treatments. On the other hand, the federal government contends that the benefits of marijuana are far too less than its damning effects and as such, they will take a very big risk in its legalization. Chronic marijuana usage produces both positive and negative effects and as such, it is recommended that the benefits must first be weighed against the risks.

The controversy about the use of marijuana originated from the legalization of the drug for medical use. Records show that medical marijuana stretches 2,000 years back. After hundreds of experiments and reports about its effects, there still remains no consensus about it. There have been many lingering questions as to the safety and effects of its use. It is a fact that marijuana has been used for intoxication and medication and until today, there has been conflicting views about its positive and negative effects. According to U.S. Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey, there is no scientific evidence that smoking marijuana can be useful but DEA Judge Francis Young contends and states that marijuana is th safest therapeutic substance that is known to man. He believes that it is much safer than other foods that is commonly consumed by the public (Roth).

These debate about medical marijuana and its use for medical purposes has been going on for many years and as of June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana must not be used, however, they stressed out that this decision as to whether or not marijuana is effective and legal for pain relief is far from over. The medicalization as well as the legalization of marijuana for other purposes are two separate issues. In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals whose physicians have prescribed marijuana due to health purposes may be arrested and tried. This decision serves as a federal ban on the use of marijuana and as such, it does not permit people to seek the protection of their state laws (Eustice).

There are several health risks associated with marijuana usage and most of these risks are related to smoking. Smoking is a drug delivery devise and one of the consequences of smoking is that it gives  a rapid-onset effect of drugs. In just a few minutes, the effect of smoked marijuana can be immediately felt and this exact effect is ideal for treating pain and nausea. If marijuana will become a component of conventional medicine, it is important that medical experts must enhance a rapid-onset delivery process that will be safer and more efficient than just the act of mere smoking the plant material (Roth). IOM report said that there are active components in marijuana that can treat pain and vomiting. The therapeutic effects of smoking marijuana are typically modest and there are other cases wherein there may be more effective medicines ( Should Medical Marijuana be a medical option ). A man named Rocky Hoveland suffers from extreme neck and spine pain. He took painkillers for a very long time, however, the drugs often left him in a state of daze. Ten years ago, he began using marijuana in order to ease the pain. After using it, he found out that it did not erase the pain but made it it more bearable. Many men like Mr. Hoverland are petitioning North Carolina in order to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. As of November 2008, Michigan became the 13th state to declare the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. The state representative D-Guilford introduced a bill in the legislative session in order to look into the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. He is of the belief that Congress will do the right move once they have seen the benefit that it gives to the public and once they have been fully educated about it (Alexander).

Smoking marijuana may be contrary to law but it does not mean that it is a sin. This argument seems to circulate among Christians who have encountered any dealings with youth who are involved in the use of marijuana. Many religious associations are hesitant to give a straight positive or negative answer to the use of marijuana because they claim that the medical evidence about its harmfulness is not yet complete. However, an advocate of situational ethics Dr. Joseph Fletcher of the Massachusetts Episcopal Theological School claims that the morality of marijuana is on a case to case basis. Social drinking is not considered as immoral and neither is smoking unless they are used excessively ( Churches The Morality of Marijuana ). In the same way, the advocates of the legalization of marijuana argue that it is wrong to deprive the patients of relief from the pain they feel because of their debilitating disease. According to the Institute of medicine, marijuana holds a promise for allieviating the pain and nausea felt by the people who were undergoing treatments like chemotherapy. It likewise shows a potential for the improvement of severe weight loss that is caused by AIDS (Joy and Watson).

A number of religious denominations gathered and made a call to Congress in order to end the persecution of patients who use medical marijuana. The United Methodist Church, the National Baptist Convention, as well as the Unitarian Universalist Association have all signed a statement and according to them, seriously ill patients must be exempted from the criminal sanctions for the use of marijuana if their doctors told them that its use is beneficial. Politicians who are against medical marijuana often make moral arguments yet there are a number of religious denominations that are advocates for the use of medical marijuana and there are no denominations that have taken a stand against it. According to IDPI director Charles Thomas, the main issue in the usage of medical marijuana is mercy. Patients who are infected with serious diseases have already suffered enough stress and those patients who want to follow their physicians advice to use marijuana must not have to live in fear of being arrested and prosecuted. Religious denominations have a duty to stand up for the weak people whom they feel are being wronged and this is exactly what they are doing. Rev. Stewart of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Nevada commented that there are facts that show the medicinal uses if marijuana. These sick people found relief in using marijuana which they were not able to find elsewhere and this fact must be prioritized by the government. It is definitely the priority of the church and as such they feel that they have to take the initiative of supporting these people. Religious denominations strongly feel an ethical and a religious obligation to stand up for those who are unable to stand up for themselves because if they do not do so then nobody else will help these people ( Most Religious Denominations Increase Pressure on Congress for Medical Marijuana ).

In the words of St. Augustine,a law that is unjust is not a law at all (Ross). Perhaps the reason why politicians and men of religious importance cannot reach a reconciliation about the legalization of marijuana is because of the difference between ethics and morality. The morality centers on the moral character of the person while ethics centers on a social system wherein the morals may be applied. Therefore, ethics point to the standards or behavioral codes that is expected by the group wherein the individual belongs (Kayne). It is not difficult to comprehend the arguments of those who are against marijuana because of their implicit claim not only to moral but on legal grounds. There are a million and one ways to prohibit its legalization but on the other hand, there are also valid reasons to allow its usage. Asking the question as to the morality of marijuana is useful because even if the federal government argues based on high moral grounds, they often fail their own word when it comes to the aspect of treating every individual justly. It is ironic that they who based their claim on high moral ground chose a path that is antagonistic to these people who they swore to protect ( Morality of the Drug War ).

The use of marijuana for medical purposes is moral on the ground that every individual has a moral obligation to take care of himself for as long as what he is doing will not be injurious to others. Legality does not necessitate morality. To say that medical marijuana is immoral because it is illegal is not true. The hatred and antagonism of those who battle against the legality of marijuana is hard to understand if it will be taken into context with the fact that it will help sick people. Based on this premise alone, there can be no question about its morality. The fact that the patients may have acquired the medical marijuana from an illegal source is a separate issue. Just because there are those people who abuse prescriptive drugs does not mean that all prescriptive drugs must be completely forgotten in order to eradicate its illegal usage. One thing that people must always remember about medical marijuana is that the issue is not about giving consent for people to get high with drugs, it is about helping those who are in need in order to help them get through their treatments one day at a time and at least make their way of life a little bit bearable.

The paper discusses the topic of business ethics. The definition of business ethics is provided. Fairness and honesty, conflicts of interests, and customer confidence are included into the list of the three most important ethical issues in modern business environments.

Throughout the development of corporate relationships in America, companies and businesses always sought to better understand and promote ethical behaviors and ethical compliance. Ethical scandals in the business world once again emphasized an urgent need for businesses to pursue the principles and norms of ethics. Business ethics is often believed to be an oxymoron businesses and organizations are confident that successful business cannot be ethical. Yet, business ethics is one of the major prerequisites for the development of fair, honest, and just corporate relationships it creates conditions necessary for organizations to successfully resolve the existing and emerging ethical dilemmas.

Business is the study of business situations, activities, and decisions where issues of right and wrong are addressed (Crane  Matten, 2007, p. 5). Business ethics involves the study of ethical conflicts and dilemmas in the corporate environments. The study of business ethics is not limited to businesses and corporations, but covers ethical conflicts in pressure groups, non-profit organizations, government organizations, and related organizational environments (Crane  Matten, 2007).

One of the basic questions businesses and organization are trying to answer is in how to distinguish right from wrong and whether laws can facilitate the process of resolving ethical dilemmas. First, the scope of business ethics extends far beyond the boundaries of law. There is considerable overlap between law and ethics, but the former sets only the minimum acceptable standards (Crane  Matten, 2007). Moreover, business ethics is often concerned with the issues which laws do not cover or cannot resolve these are the issues in which no definite consensus about right and wrong can be reached. Second, business ethics provides numerous example and strategies, which businesses could use to decide upon what is right and what is wrong in each particular situation. For example, prescriptive approaches to ethical dilemmas require that businesses concentrate on consequences of their actions or their duties and obligations  both can serve a reliable criterion in judging the ethical righteousness of any business decision (Trevino  Nelson, 2006). Third, the study of business ethics offers an insight into the most important ethical issues and provides businesses with the basic knowledge of how they could address and solve the most difficult ethical dilemmas.

The three most important ethical issues in my community include fairness and honesty, conflicts of interest, and customer confidence. Pride, Hughes and Kapoor (2008) are correct, saying that fairness and honesty are the subjects of the continuous ethical concern in organizations. Fairness and honesty exemplify the two most important standards, which businesses must follow in their relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, and partners. Fairness is of particular importance in human resources, for most corporate policy is constructed to build fairness into the system (Trevino  Nelson, p. 68). It should be followed and supplemented by organizations ability to successfully and timely resolve the conflicts of interests. These occur whenever organizations or employees have to sacrifice or compromise the objectivity of their judgments (Trevino  Nelson, 2006), and when employees or organizations take an advantage of an unethical situation to pursue their narrow self-interests (Pride, Hughes  Kapoor, 2008). Enron is the bright example of how conflicts of interests can become the cause of the major ethical and, consequently, financial and legal problems. Finally, these are the problems with customer confidence that reflect in poorer business performance. These issues affect a broad range of topics within the organization-customer relationship discourse and imply that organizations must be ethical, honest, fair toward their customers, treat them with respect and base their relationships on trust (Trevino  Nelson, 2006). Whether organizations can cope with their ethical dilemmas depends on how well they can learn the basics of business ethics and although business ethics is often treated as an oxymoron, there is obviously much to learn and to use for the benefit of continuous profitability and ethical compliance.

The Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) promotes the hiring and advancement of disabled veterans for departments and agencies in the Federal Government through affirmative action (AA) programs. This program is different from the affirmative action programs for women and minorities, because the latter are given preferential treatment in employment and education commonly through quota systems and by providing more lenient selection procedures for unqualified applicants. This essay argues that disabled veterans should not get preferential treatment over better qualified candidates who are not disabled veterans, because deontologically, it is unconstitutional and wrong to use quotas to advance the rights of minorities (Muhl, 1999, p.49), people should be hired based on merit, and this will only promote reverse discrimination, and using the utilitarian perspective, unqualified people should not be hired that can pose problems or harms in the future, and this AA program can also lead to resentment for others who are more qualified, but were not hired, but in order to protect disabled veterans from discrimination, they should also be considered closely for what they can do, despite their disabilities, so that they can still access meaningful employment opportunities (Background information).

Disabled veterans should not get preferential treatment over better qualified candidates who are not disabled veterans, because deontologically, it is unconstitutional and wrong to use quotas to advance the rights of minorities (Muhl, 1999, p.49). It is not considered constitutional to create quotas or other similar forms to improve the employment opportunities for women and minorities, according to a California Supreme Court (Muhl, 1999, p.48), and the same applies to unqualified disabled veterans. In addition, it is also wrong to use quotas to advance the rights of minorities, because it is the duty of the society to address only the wrongs that directly affected the disabled veterans, and employing them, when they are unqualified, will not address employment problems they might have had in the past. People should also be hired based on merit, because this is the right way of employment that can be universalized. Hiring unqualified workers will also only promote reverse discrimination, which is also wrong, because qualified people should be employed, so that they can perform their roles and responsibilities properly.

Furthermore, according to the utilitarian perspective, unqualified people should not be hired that can pose problems or harms in the future. For instance, when people hire a disabled veteran, who can hardly perform certain manual jobs, this might lead to safety issues that can only harm the veteran and others around him. In addition, this AA program can also lead to resentment for others who are more qualified, but were not hired. Other non-disabled people might know about the hiring of an unqualified disabled veteran, which would dampen their morale and feel injustice. This result will not improve the utility of the society, as a whole.

On the other hand, in order to protect disabled veterans from discrimination, they should also be considered closely for what they can do, despite their disabilities, so that they can improve workplace diversity and decrease workplace disenfranchisement for their group (Background information). This means that employers and the HR should also not just quickly dismiss less qualified disabled veterans during their applicants review, and they should pay extra attention on the specific attributes and potentials of the disabled veterans (Wilkins, 2008). In this manner, they would avoid unconscious discrimination or prejudice and probably find more suitable jobs for the disabled veterans.

Thus, it is wrong to hire unqualified disabled veterans over more qualified non-veterans. The DVAAP, nevertheless, asks departments and agencies in the Federal Government to provide greater consideration for them, not through quotas or more lenient employment standards, but through an analysis of their potential and qualifications, so that that they would not be disenfranchised from the working sector.

Does being ethical pay off It is a question that has been asked many times and yet no conclusive answer has been arrived at. From a moral point of view being ethical is the right decision, in fact it is the only decision one should take. When we look at this question from a financial point of view there are two opposing parties. Being ethical pays off in the long run and being unethical may lead you to reap huge profits with a risk of being caught. Being unethical would also lead one to have trouble sleeping but one could think that an unethical person can easily sleep in his centrally air conditioned 1000 acre mansion. The purpose of this study is to come to answer the question Empirically speaking does ethics pay Are firms who are more ethical top performers This study is based on information from various articles, books, and periodicals. Different pros and cons of being ethical and unethical will be discussed before this study will be concluded.

Introduction

Ethics is a branch of HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiPhilosophy o Philosophyphilosophy. It is called moral philosophy by some and its purpose is to address questions about HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiMorality o Moralitymorality. It encompasses the concepts such as HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiGood o Goodgood and HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiBad o Badbad, the noble and the ignoble, HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiRight o Rightright and HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiWrong o Wrongwrong, HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiJustice o Justicejustice, and HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiVirtue o Virtuevirtue. It is a very subjective term. You may find universality in some issues relating to ethics but broadly speaking ethics is very dependent on perception. What may be right for one person may be wrong for another. These variations may be due to cultures, religions, demographics etc. For example a woman may wear a swimsuit in Florida. That would be a way she expresses herself and it is her choice if she wishes to wear a swimsuit. If she wears the same attire somewhere in Saudi Arabia the people there will consider it incorrect as it does not go in line with their culture and religion. It would be wrong for them. Ethics is based a lot on perception and thus is very hard to define. Some things though are universally unethical. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. are unethical universally. There is a very fine line between being ethical and unethical and these universal unethical acts may also be viewed as ethical. Capital punishment, abortion and euthanasia are examples of ethical dilemmas that have yet to be termed as completely ethical or unethical.

If it is hard to distinguish between ethical and unethical behaviour, then how can one define it. Being ethical helps you sleep at night with a free conscious. This is a very subjective way to define ethical practice. What bothers ones conscience may not bother another. Even though ethics may vary from people to people we will try and look at it without any relativity. We will look at practices that are either ethical or either unethical. We will try to be as objective as possible for looking at both the pros and cons of being ethical (Lama, 2001).

Does ethics pay
All companies in the 21st century have made their code of ethics. These code of ethics is how they define they will incorporate ethics in their business practices. Companies try to inculcate ethical behaviour into their employees through training and by imposing consequences on people who breach the code of ethics. Ethics is one of the relatively new buzzwords in the field of management. It has increased in importance as rules and regulations are now being set and implemented upon to defend the rights of consumers, employees and other shareholders of companies. Being ethical helps you create relationships whilst being unethical helps you find a way to gain many material goods quickly. As long as you dont get caught being unethical will help you achieve fame, it will help you get your job done much faster, it will also help you make more money, and it will help you achieve rapid fast success in the short run. It all depends on if a company is a short sprint runner or whether a company is a marathon runner. In the long run ethics is bound to pay you results.

There are many different ways in which companies can be unethical. To best define unethical practices are practices that break the laws of the country the company is working in. With this definition we will also add the moral behaviour of a company shows its ethical behaviour. There are many different unethical practices that have been identified in companies. Some of them are window dressing, inside trading, discrimination, sexual harassment, bribery, price fixing, and claiming anything which is not the truth (Frankena, 1988).

To further strengthen this point we can look at many different examples. The examples that are being used are ones that anyone can relate to and are a part of daily lives of many people. We are faced with ethical dilemmas daily and so are companies doing business in the corporate world. If you cheat in an exam you are bound to get good marks and pass that course. If you are caught you might face many different consequences like expulsion, suspension, failure or humiliation. It is a risk one can take if one really wishes to pass the course. If one is not caught then it would mean that the person ends up passing the course without doing any work for the course and this person does not bear the consequence. If this scenario is analyzed after the person has not been caught cheating it may be thought that this person was able to achieve success without working for it. In the short run this person would also be recognized as passing this test like every other student in his class. In the long run this person would have no idea or clue about the concepts he has studied. If this person had failed before then he would have had to work his way so as to manage a passing grade. Even though working hard to pass may seem a waste of time at that moment of time, one has to realize that knowledge learnt is an asset that never goes to waste. In this case we can see that being unethical may seem an easy path towards success but it might also lead to knowledge that is lost in the long run (Thiroux, 2008).

Window dressing and unethical accounting practices have become very common as companies want more people to invest in their companies. Like every other unethical practice that takes place in companies this practice can also be deemed as short run in nature. Investors look at the financial data of companies before deciding on investing in the stock of the company. These unethical practices may lead to people investing their money in the companys stock. This would be short run in nature because the investors would eventually realize they have made a mistake and they would not invest in the company again. The truth does not hide for a very long period of time eventually it has to come out. When it does the company may face many fines and the investors would demand their investment back. Investment would start to pour out of the company. This practice is still in use in many companies because for many companies it is more about first consolidating its position in the short run and then leveraging their position to cater to the long term. This is an ethical dilemma. Being ethical may lead to less investment because of a poor financial standing.

Bribes are an issue that has plagued both developed and developing countries. Bribes are considered unethical in some countries and in other countries bribes are thought of as gift or persuasive arguments in favour for a company. Bribes are unethical and many companies do not compromise on bribing to gain a competitive edge. Bribes are given to companies and also to individuals to gain competitive edges over others. Bribes can be made to government officials to look the other way for a small violation of building regulations. They may be also given to individuals within client companies to get preference for your company. Bribes are also used to win over contracts from different clientele from competitors. Bribes can also be used to make sure that a jury decides in your favour during a lawsuit. Bribing is sometimes necessary in some countries so as to avoid a lot of bureaucratic red tape. So what exactly is bribing. Bribing is giving material benefits to someone in authority so that he does something unethical which helps your company gain an unfair advantage. It is unethical but it poses a dilemma for many companies, especially those working in developing countries. In some of the developing countries the custom officers will not release your shipment for days if he is not given a bribe. They make you go through a lot of bureaucratic red tape before releasing your shipment. In some countries your competitors gain unfair advantages by bribing officials. This brings ethical dilemmas for a company. If it acts ethically it ends up with a disadvantage against its competition. Acting unethical may seem smart in this scenario. This again is very subjective and open to perception. By the looks of things it seems that ethics does not pay off but actually gives you a disadvantage over your unethical competitors. In such a scenario what does one do, act ethically and let your competitors trample over you or act unethically yourself (Curley, 2005).

The biggest unethical practice that companies are using today is marketing. Marketing practices are hailed by many people as unethical. The consumer is led to believe things that are not true. Marketing is all about getting your brand in the mind of the consumer. On many occasions companies play with the minds of their consumers and make space for their brands in their minds. Sublimation, puffery, sex in advertising, children in advertising, and defaming your competition are all practices that are being used in marketing to gain an advantage over the companys competitors. All these practices are unethical and this is agreed upon by even marketers. We are exposed to these unethical practices on a daily basis. Companies use these unethical practices to gain a competitive edge. These marketing techniques are more effective than other ethical marketing techniques that are being used. Marketing is all about playing with perceptions and companies that are able to play well with it succeed.

These examples help us see how disadvantageous being ethical can be. It gives you a disadvantage in front of you unethical competitors and it also means you lose out on the easy path to success. Then how can one say that ethical behaviour pays off. The consequences of being unethical far outweigh the short term benefits. It is the age of relationship selling. Companies in this age are facing a lot of competition and to sell their products they now need to use the concepts of properly managing their relationships with their customers. In an age where information is freely available and so many competitors are fighting for the same set of customers companies that are able to build relationships with customers are the ones that are able to achieve success. You may fool your customer once or twice and make a sale but you end up losing that long term sale in the long run. Companies that are ethical are preferred more by customers and they happen to be more loyal to them.

There are various practical examples that one can learn from. All these examples help us understand how consequential being unethical can be. Texaco was fined 176 million when it discriminated against its employees. It lost its lawsuit and had to compensate such a staggering amount for their unethical practice. Mercury Finance overstated its profits and this eventually led to Mercury Finance to lose  2.2 billion in stock almost overnight. Investors poured out their money from the company when they found about the unethical practices that were being carried out. The largest criminal fine ever paid was  100 million. This was paid by ADM and that for price fixing. The CEO of Genentech lost his job for trying to obtain a 2 million loan as part of a business deal. He tried to gain out of the deal unethically and he was sacked for it when his unethical behaviour was found out. The CEO of W.R. Grace lost his job on charges of sexual harassment. All these examples point to one thing and one thing only. Unethical behaviour costs you big time. If any company is found of unethical behaviour consumers, investors and even employees look at the company with disgrace and then the fines, lawsuits and bad publicity hamper the companys performance. Unethical behaviour has a lot of consequences. Investors stop investing, customers switch to more ethical companies to register their protest, employees wish to work for ethical companies, and the lawsuits are costs incurred (Cahn, 2008).

We have established now that unethical behaviour costs a company. Now we will look at different researches and how they prove that ethical behaviour helps pay the company back. The first study that we will look upon is one that was conducted in1994. This study showed found out that 26  of investors viewed the companys level of social responsibility before investing in it. This study proved that ethical behaviour and corporate values matter to investors. The investors are not only after the financial stability of a company but they also look upon the companys moral ethics before deciding to put their money into the company. There are many potential investors that look at the code of ethics of a company and look at how its repute is before investing in it. They want to invest in companies that are profitable ethically. Another study that was conducted in 1994 showed that 75 of consumers avoid or refuse to buy products from certain companies. The first reason to do so was because of poor service. The second reason that may be a shocker to many is the companys practice. The second biggest reason for customers not to buy a product of a particular company is the business practices of companies. This means that many consumers do not buy certain products because the parent company is involved in some sort of unethical practice. Another study which was conducted in Vanderbilt University demonstrated that low-polluting companies enjoyed better financial performance than high-polluting competitors in eight out of ten cases. This is a staggering number. It clearly shows that investors and customers care a lot about the practices of a company. A company that cares more about the environment will have more money invested in it and more people would like to buy their products. Caring for the environment is what is ethical and this study clearly shows that in the long run the ethical strategy pays off. The ethical strategy helps create relationships with customers and creates a bond which does not break easily. Another study which was conducted in 1997 found that customers are willing to switch to brands that are for a good cause. This study clearly shows that customers are willing to switch to companies following more ethical practices and companies that are giving back to the society. All these studies show one thing and one thing only. Companies that have ethical practices do get paid for it. They are able to attract more investors and their customers are more loyal to them (Frankena, 1988).

Many of the Fortune 500 companies are seen as ethical companies. Their code of ethics is role models for others to follow. The companies that have adopted ethical practices are successful. They are looked favourably by the governments, customers, investors and regulatory bodies alike. Their ethical practices are not the sole reason for their success but their ethical practices do indeed help in being named in the Fortune 500 companies. They are companies with immaculate records. Companies such as Enron that were previously looked upon favourably are now looked with shame due to the unethical practices they carried out. The way Johnson and Johnson solved its Tylenol issue is one that is lauded and praised time and time again. They did what was ethical and the short term loss they incurred back then has now been converted into long term benefits. The loyal customers they have gained after the Tylenol incident is one which can not be measured. They did what was morally correct and they are still reaping the benefits for it. Johnson and Johnson are a role model for any company that does not think that ethical behaviour would eventually pay off (Lama, 2001).

Ethics pays off eventually. The main aim of any company is to make profits by making sales to customers and achieving financial stability or growth by using the investors money. Ethics pays big time in both these different departments. Companies that have adopted ethical practices are in the good books of both investors and consumers. So even though unethical practices do lead to short term gains ethical practices do end up benefitting the company at the end of the day. Ethical and moral behaviour by companies helps them in getting not only customers but relationships with customers that is bound to last for a long time. The consequences of unethical behaviour can deter companies from behaving unethically. Companies need to learn from the experiences of various other companies and start acting in an ethical manner.

Conclusion
Does ethical behaviour pay back companies  Are firms who are ethical top performers These were the two questions that this study was set out to answer. There will still be a long debate on this question. From the various studies that were analyzed the conclusion that we can come to is that ethics does indeed pay. The firms that are ethical are indeed todays top performers. Ethical behaviour helps firms in getting better investors and more loyal customers. Ethical behaviour helps one win in the long run. In the short run unethical behaviour may indeed bring you success, but that success is very short lived and is not something that you can count on. Ethics is an integral part of all the companies that have achieved success and are the member of the highly acclaimed Fortune 500 companies.

Ethics is very open to perception and is very subjective in nature. What is wrong for one person may be right for another. Companies need to ensure that they make a code of ethics that they inculcate in all of their employees. The decisions that an employee of a company makes can affect the company in both a positive and a negative manner. Companies need to train their employees about what decisions to take during ethical dilemmas. Formal training is required so as to ensure that the employees understand the importance of ethics. The employees have the responsibility of maintaining the goodwill of the company. The values that are to be inculcated from the code of ethics needs to be followed by both superiors and junior staff members. The upper level management needs to be sure that they act as role models for their peers to follow. Strict check is also required to ensure that the code of ethics is being followed. The bottom line for every company is that it needs to ensure that their employees make ethical decisions at every moment so that the name of the company is not hampered (Cahn, 2008).

Companies face many ethical dilemmas. In the age of globalization where borders have shrunk and different cultures now interact companies need to ensure that during ethical dilemmas their employees make the right decision. Unethical behaviour on the part of the companys employees will cause the company to bear many consequences and it will tamper with their reputation. The importance of ethics cannot be overemphasized. It is what differentiates long term players with short term players. Ethics does indeed pay you back in the long run in the form of higher sales and more investment.

A type of misconduct that is being used in the law enforcement is noble cause corruption.  Applying the philosophy that the end justifies the means, the law enforcement is being used to achieve peace and security through the violation of laws in order to accomplish the mission.  By promoting peace for the greater good of the society, the law enforcement is engaged with a mission that violates the laws themselves, as they lose moral compass, while affecting the reputation of the agency.  This supports the philosophy that it is morally right to do whatever it takes to imprison who prey on society (Rothlein, 2008, p.1).  Is it rightful to apply force and violation of the law for the sake of the greater good of the society

This paper reflects on the two sides of the coin the side that supports the use of noble cause corruption as well as the side that opposes it.  It reflects over the decree that the end justifies the means, and what is more important is the greater good of the many.  In the end, it gives us the conclusion that the rightful use of noble cause corruption depends on whether the bad means achieves the good end, and how much good is being achieved in the end.

Main Body
Noble cause corruption is good for the society
A police officer that inflicts pain on his subject may have acquired information that would save an innocent victim in the end.  Using the utilitarian viewpoint that the end justifies the means (Pollock, 2010, p.267), the law enforcement may apply the magic pencil by making up facts to justify a warrant or to establish probable cause for arrests (Pollock, 2010, p.267) for the greater good of the many.  Because noble cause appears to be the underlying reason for the unrightful deed, it claims nobility of the act and should therefore be preserved.  There are a number of ways that the police organizations, crime-lab investigators, and prosecutors apply noble cause corruption to the law enforcement through the application of the teleological ethical system, such as the following

Through investigation.  Through investigation, the law enforcement, crime-lab investigators, and prosecutors apply noble cause corruption by collecting evidence that would successfully prosecute the convicted criminal.  This is in the form of ignoring witnesses or evidence or even manufacturing evidence to shore up a case against an individual (Pollock, 2010, p.269).  The police interacts in a deceptive manner during investigation, while using the decree that no interaction should go on longer than twenty-four hours without a warrant with probable cause (Pollock, 2010, p.276) and not engaging in intimate relationships in the course of the investigation.  Balancing the utility of the action requires the application of utilitarian ethics, while engaging in investigative deceptions.

Through undercover operations.  Through the use of undercover operations, the law enforcement, crime-lab investigators, and prosecutors apply noble cause corruption by examining and revealing the operations dictated by the movement.  This leads the perceived criminal to an unintended crime, and the law officials to a concealed danger.  There are situations wherein decoys have been attacked, undercover officers have been robbed, and undercover officers have been killed because of judicial reasons.  According to the principle of the double effect, when one does an action to achieve a good end and inevitable but unintended effect is negative, the action might be justified (Pollock, 2010, p.280).
The unethical movement of the police and the law enforcement is being justified if the unethical consequence was not intended and the goal was an ethical one (Pollock, 2010, p.280).  By this the action is being justified by concentrating more on the effect and not the means.  This, however, puts aside actions like deception of the innocent, since it contains an intended effect and not an unintended effect.  The double effect applies only on good ends.    

Through interrogation.  Through the use of interrogation, the law enforcement, crime-lab investigators, and prosecutors apply noble cause corruption through the promotion of intended deception and mental coercion.  There is the use of threat or promise attached to this action, inducing confessions or information from the perceived victim.  There are a number of deceptive interrogation techniques suggested by Skolnick and Leo (1992), such as calling the questioning an interview rather than an interrogation, presenting Miranda warnings in a way designed to negate their effect, mispresenting the nature or seriousness of the offense, mispresenting the moral seriousness of the offense, using manipulative appeals to conscience through role playing, as well as mispresenting identity by pretending to be lawyers or priests (Pollock, 2010, p.283).  Mental deception is more commonly used than the physical means of coercion (Pollock, 2010, p.283).  The use of deceptive conversations may be used in promoting the greater good of the many.

Noble cause corruption is not good for the society
The police organizations, crime-lab investigators, and prosecutors usually apply shortcuts that would convict the perceived guilty, with the latter being noted as innocent unless perceived guilty by the law enforcement.  In their desire to have the perceived criminal convicted, these people commit perjury, which is a serious crime.  Pollock (2010) dictates the statement mentioned by Alderson (1998) who states the following

Noble cause corruption is a euphemism for perjury, which is a serious crime In ethical police terms justice is not divisible in this way into means and ends, and the peddlers of this perversion of justice are guilty of the immorality of the totalitarian police state, and their views stand to be roundly condemned. (Pollock, 2010, p.268)

This supports the theory that what is more important is the nobility of the act itself and not the ends of the act.  Here we see that there is no truth being claimed in the theory that the means justifies the end but that the means is being justified itself and not the ends.  This reflects the deontological ethical system, which is grounded on the belief that how and why you do something is more important than the result your behavior produces (Bayley, 2010, p.1).  It presupposes that if your actions are inherently good, then it doesnt matter what the outcome is since your conduct is ethically sound (Bayley, 2010, p.1).  On the other hand, if actions are inherently bad, then it doesnt matter what the outcome is, since your conduct is ethically wrong.  Here we see the difference of what is more important the means or the ends this differentiates the teleological from the deontological ethical systems.  Therefore, if the nobility of the act itself is being recognized, then it is being made evident that noble cause corruption is not noble at all, and that there is no way it can be recognized as something that is good, since more emphasis is being put on the means and not the ends.

It is said that the culture of police is not supportive of egoistic criminality, but it is supportive of catching the criminalwhatever it takes (Pollock, 2010, p.268).  As for changing the culture of police, we have to address it directly, as multiculturalism becomes a reality, and the police and justice officials need to adapt and accommodate the needs of different groups (Pollock, 2010, p.268).  Here we see that policing is being shaped by the culture of the society, and that it shapes the culture of the society.  However, as the use of coercion physically, mentally, and psychologically harms the convicted person, we say that noble cause corruption is morally bad in the society.  What then, is the drawing line between the proper use of noble cause corruption and the unlawful use of this corruption

According to Miller (1999), the drawing line can be seen in the way the police think and enact the whole predicament.  According to Miller (1999),

The paradox whereby police necessarily use methods which are normally morally wrong to secure morally worthy ends sets up a dangerous moral dynamic.  The danger is that the police will come to think that the ends always justify the means to come to accept the inevitability and desirability of so-called noble cause corruption.  From noble cause corruption, they can graduate to straightforward corruption (Miller, 1999, p.1)            

The main strategy would then be to solve cases in particular wherein methods are used principally according to the presented case.  It is important not to commit straightforward corruption, which is very near the boundary line of noble cause corruption.  There are cases wherein true criminals were not discovered or punished because the police officers were not able to apply proper protocol in the collection of evidence.  Errors in judgment make way for injustice, and it ends up to the police officials creating crime and injustice themselves.  This is true in entrapments, wherein an otherwise innocent person commits an illegal act because of police encouragement or enticement (Pollock, 2010, p.272).  Therefore, police organizations, crime-lab investigators, and prosecutors should be very vigilant when applying their presupposed investigation.

Conclusion
In Brewer v. Williams case, the Supreme Court ruled that police unconstitutionally infringed on the defendants right to counsel because the conversation constituted an interrogation without counsel, after counsel had been appointed (Pollok, 2010, p.283).  There are other cases, however, wherein the Supreme Court approved involved deceptive conversations before counsel has been appointed.  Delattre has presented a virtue-based ethical system, and indicates that a good, virtuous officer can still commit an illegal use of force, since one act of violence does not necessarily mean that the officer is unethical in other ways (Pollok, 2010, p.285).  Here it is evident that applying force and violation of the law for the sake of the greater good of the society is rightful if it is exclusively, rightfully done for the good of the many.  The key ingredient would be determined by effect of the deed, whether it achieves a good end, and how much good is being attained in the end.

The activities of the police and law enforcements are so diverse.  As stated by Seumas Miller (1999),
There can be no overarching philosophical theory or explanatory framework that spells out the fundamental nature and purpose of policing because the activities that the police engage in are so diverse. (Miller, 1999, p.1)

Engrossed in a wide variety of activities, police and law enforcement officials are highly visible authority figures who carry the right to position coercive force.  They carry the moral right to life, liberty, physical security, as well as property.  According to Miller (1999), They constitute the basic moral norms of the society (p.1) and thus, are an important part of the society.  As reflected in writings of Pollock (2010), if the goal of the police is purely crime control, then there is greater inclination to use utilitarian rationales and the teleological ethical system.  However, if it is for the sake of egocentric goals and ambition, then the deontological ethical system would be far better, since the greater good of the many is being recognized.  Noble cause corruption is only rightful if the goal is for overall crime control.  

There is divided opinion among the states regarding whether to apply a subjective or an objective standard of care standard in informed consent cases.  Those states employing a subjective standard of care effectively reduce causation in an informed consent case to a situation where the patients testimony is the controlling evidence.  Specifically, rather than allowing a jury or a judge to consider whether a particular patients decision is reasonable or rational, the finders of fact are legally compelled to determine whether an alleged injury is caused by a lack of informed consent solely with reference to that patients testimony.  Reasonableness and broader notions of objective rationality are therefore tangential and not allowed for consideration.  An objective standard of care, on the other hand, allows the finders of fact to recognize and consider a patients testimony while also allowing them to consider from other evidentiary sources what a prudent person in the patients position would have decided if suitably informed of all perils bearing significance (Ashe. v. Radiation Oncology Associates, 1999, p. 122).  The main difference is what evidence may be considered and how the finders of fact may assess and evaluate a patients decision-making process within the context of causation and informed consent.

The outcome would have been procedurally different, and perhaps the verdict would have been different, had the subjective standard of care been applied in this case of first impression in the State of Tennessee.  The states trial court, for instance, employed a subjective standard which effectively limited the evidence to the plaintiffs testimony.  As a result of the testimonial inconsistencies between the plaintiffs deposition and trial testimnony, the trial court judge took the case away from the jury and entered a directed verdict in favor of defendants.  On appeal, addressing the proper standard of care to be applied in such cases, both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Tennessee characterized the trial courts decision as improper.  Both appellate courts agreed, for example, that an objective standard should have been applied and that, as a result, the jury should have been allowed to consider both the credibility of plaintiffs testimony and whether a prudent individual in similar circumstances would have assented or refused treatment had informed consent been provided.  Procedurally, therefore, the case would have been different substantively, in terms of an actual verdict based on this expansion of evidentiary consideration, the case might very well be different, too.

A standard of care is an ethical and legal conception that has arisen within the larger context of negligence and tort law.  It generally refers to the minimum individual or professional standards through which duties may be performed without incurring legal liability.  How the standard of care in any particular case is defined depends, as previously mentioned, on underlying policy objectives related to ethical outcomes and the most rationale type of causation to attribute to different types of social and professional relationships.  It has been noted in informed consent cases that The legal basis for informed consent arises largely from fundamental principles of medical ethics and human rights. This is therefore a standard of care issue that directly implicates human rights considerations.  In the instant case, remanded to the trial court with instructions to provide an objective standard of care framework, the jury will now be able to judge the credibility of the patients testimony and also to determine what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances had informed consent been provided.  First, the patient does have a credibility problem because of the inconsistencies in her deposition and her subsequent testimony at trial.  Second, given the fact that this was her second bout with cancer, it seems that a reasonable person very well might have risked being in a wheelchair in order to avoid death.  This, however, is a difficult issue because different people value different qualities of life differently.  The patients assertion that she would rather die, in effect, than be confined to a wheelchair is therefore plausible and perhaps reasonable for her own quality of life philosophy.  The legal standard, however, is what a reasonable person would do rather than what this particular patient would do and this makes it slightly more likely that the jury will rule in favor of defendants on remand.  This is an extraordinarily difficult case to comment upon because, in a free society, it is generally hoped that people have control over their lives, liberties, and happiness.  Additionally, in informed consent cases, patients are dependent on the expertise of medical professionals.  The fact remains, in the instant case, that it cannot be precisely determined what the plaintiff would have done had informed consent been provided and a just and ethical legal system should account for possible bitterness and anger.  Thus, I agree with the Supreme Courts decision to adopt the majority objective standard of care.

Rather than having these types of cases frequently litigated, and compelling juries to render verdicts based on imperfect information and hypothetical or personal value systems, it would certainly be preferable if these types of legal cases could be prevented before they ever arise.  This would best be accomplished by expanding and revising medical ethics as they apply specifically in the context of providing informed consent to patients. There is no question that medical professionals are busy and that they work under stress similarly, there is no question that there are a variety of risks ranging from very unlikely to likely to occur.  Medical professionals and medical scholars, though, are very intelligent people and it would not be hard at all to create a committee responsible for creating a list of potential risks for all types of medical procedures.  A problem, however, is that data on what information 1 of the population finds necessary to make the decision is currently unavailable for most medical decisions.  This information can and should be compiled even if is not yet available to many medical professionals. These lists could then be provided to patients considering specific types of medical procedures, the language would have to be simple rather than overly technical to account for the patients lack of medical expertise, and perhaps the list could be signed after a five minute consultation with an independent informed consent specialist  in order to establish a more precise type of informed consent both ethically and legally.

In the final analysis, it is unfortunate that these types of cases arise with such frequency.  Individuals are quite dependent on medical professionals and it is hardly surprising that patients might vent their anger on responsible medical providers when a medical risk becomes a medical reality.  Informed consent, however, is a context which must be distinguished from negligence in the form of medical malpractice or from medical battery.  It is a unique type of ethical and legal claim and it can be prevented from arising.  This is a legal case which can be eradicated with proper and professional communication with patients prior to any medical procedures being applied.  Standard of care issues in informed consent cases ought to be solved at the root rather than frequently litigated.