http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/09/22/Kids.test.gene.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
This article is mainly about whether or not it is ethical to test children for breast cancer gene mutations. Like anything else, there are many pros and cons to this. It has shown that talking about testing and inherited cancer risks with teens can help some quit smoking, limit alcohol use, and avoid birth control pills (which raises the risk of breast cancer but lowers the risk of ovarian). A con is the effect it may put on family members and the BRCA gene test can cost up to three thousand dollars. If either parents has the BRCA gene mutation, the child has a fifty-fifty chance of getting it. To lower risks, women can take anti-estrogen drugs or have their breasts or ovaries removed, but these measures are not advised for young women. Should parents tests their young children or should they leave it up to their children for when they are older?
I believe that I would not want to know if I had the risk of getting cancer. If I did decide to get tested for it, I would want to wait till I was in my twenties. Growing up is hard enough, never mind having to worry about any little thing that bothers you in your body. I feel that no child should have to feel like they are "waiting" for cancer to take over their body. Everything happens for a reason, and I would rather live my life to the fullest and enjoy every minute I have of it instead of dreading the possibility of cancer constantly in the back of my mind.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Norway sells $1 billion Rio Stake...
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24328467-14334,00.html
This article is about on of Europe's biggest investors selling its $1 billion stake in Rio Tinto due to unethical conduct. Rio Tinto is the world's largest gold mine. The Grasberg mine is located in Papua, Indonesia and operated by US-based copper and gold producer Freeport McMoRan. Grasberg mine discharged about 230,000 tons of mine residue into local rivers each day! This mine has caused harmful effects on our environment, but why do they continue to do this? This mine is set up to run until 2041 and the discharges will be increasing in the future along side the expansions that will be made. There is a high risk that acid rock drainage from the company's waste rock and residue will cause lasting ground and water contamination. As a result, Norway's Finance Ministry has decided to no longer hold ownership interests in a company who acts unethically. It is unknown if the company will change its future practices. The Rio Tinto knows that dumping residue into the local waterways is damaging the area, but they continue to do so. Why would a company want to harm their own area where they live? Are they gaining so much more of a profit by polluting than they would be if the residue was properly disposed of it? And if that was the case, it still isn't right. We should all be working towards making this Earth clean for future generations, regardless the price.
This article is about on of Europe's biggest investors selling its $1 billion stake in Rio Tinto due to unethical conduct. Rio Tinto is the world's largest gold mine. The Grasberg mine is located in Papua, Indonesia and operated by US-based copper and gold producer Freeport McMoRan. Grasberg mine discharged about 230,000 tons of mine residue into local rivers each day! This mine has caused harmful effects on our environment, but why do they continue to do this? This mine is set up to run until 2041 and the discharges will be increasing in the future along side the expansions that will be made. There is a high risk that acid rock drainage from the company's waste rock and residue will cause lasting ground and water contamination. As a result, Norway's Finance Ministry has decided to no longer hold ownership interests in a company who acts unethically. It is unknown if the company will change its future practices. The Rio Tinto knows that dumping residue into the local waterways is damaging the area, but they continue to do so. Why would a company want to harm their own area where they live? Are they gaining so much more of a profit by polluting than they would be if the residue was properly disposed of it? And if that was the case, it still isn't right. We should all be working towards making this Earth clean for future generations, regardless the price.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
To Fire or Not to Fire
http://askfsb.blogs.fsb.cnn.com/2008/06/04/to-fire-or-not-to-fire-%e2%80%93-the-ethics-of-the-layoff/
"To Fire or Not To Fire - the Ethics of a Layoff" points out the pros and cons to firing an employee, especially to a small business owner. Sam Margolin has a service technician employeed to him, but his company hasn't been receiving enough service calls and can't continue to pay the tech for sitting around. The owner wanted to know what he should do or how to make use of his tech. A Fortune Small Business contributer wrote back to Sam's concern explaining it can be good to his business, but can also have consequences. First, from the business' view, finding another skilled technician when business picks back up can be difficult. Second, from the employees' view, getting laid off will have a huge affect on him and his family. The author points out that the "utilitarian" consequences may be best for everyone if the employee is let go. He concludes with:
“[The idea] is always to treat other people not merely as means to our own ends but as ends in themselves,” Hoopes says. Instead of merely saying “Sorry, I don’t need you anymore,” employers can help the employee find a new job, assist with retraining for a different profession, or by pay severance when the employee leaves."...
Which is of course a more ethical move.
"To Fire or Not To Fire - the Ethics of a Layoff" points out the pros and cons to firing an employee, especially to a small business owner. Sam Margolin has a service technician employeed to him, but his company hasn't been receiving enough service calls and can't continue to pay the tech for sitting around. The owner wanted to know what he should do or how to make use of his tech. A Fortune Small Business contributer wrote back to Sam's concern explaining it can be good to his business, but can also have consequences. First, from the business' view, finding another skilled technician when business picks back up can be difficult. Second, from the employees' view, getting laid off will have a huge affect on him and his family. The author points out that the "utilitarian" consequences may be best for everyone if the employee is let go. He concludes with:
“[The idea] is always to treat other people not merely as means to our own ends but as ends in themselves,” Hoopes says. Instead of merely saying “Sorry, I don’t need you anymore,” employers can help the employee find a new job, assist with retraining for a different profession, or by pay severance when the employee leaves."...
Which is of course a more ethical move.
Angry?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/smallbusiness/smash_shack.smb/index.htm?postversion=2008092510
I can't really decide if there's a "moral issue" with this article.. but I found it interesting, especially with all of the stresses in today's society. A former vet technician, has opened her own shop in San Diego; but not your typical fashion, home, or pet shop. It's "Sarah's Smash Shack." Yes.. the name says it all. You can go into this one of a kind shop and pay to break items such as dinner plates, wine glasses, vases, etc. The customer is padded up and stands behind a barrier while they chuck and slam items into a stainless steel wall. The broken glass is then donated to regional schools' art programs. It's a creative and therapeutic idea.. but why have one more expense to break items that can be done in your own home? Sarah Lavely, the owner, charges $45 for a pack of 15 plates; 6 wine glasses or 2 large jugs for $12. And keep in mind, it cost $200,000 just to start this "business". Not sure if the owner will see a significant profit?
I can't really decide if there's a "moral issue" with this article.. but I found it interesting, especially with all of the stresses in today's society. A former vet technician, has opened her own shop in San Diego; but not your typical fashion, home, or pet shop. It's "Sarah's Smash Shack." Yes.. the name says it all. You can go into this one of a kind shop and pay to break items such as dinner plates, wine glasses, vases, etc. The customer is padded up and stands behind a barrier while they chuck and slam items into a stainless steel wall. The broken glass is then donated to regional schools' art programs. It's a creative and therapeutic idea.. but why have one more expense to break items that can be done in your own home? Sarah Lavely, the owner, charges $45 for a pack of 15 plates; 6 wine glasses or 2 large jugs for $12. And keep in mind, it cost $200,000 just to start this "business". Not sure if the owner will see a significant profit?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
One Nation Under Wal-Mart
This article interested me because I'm from a small town and while I was growing up I saw first hand how a Wal-Mart can change a local economy. First off they opened just outside the city limits to avoid city taxes. Also all income generated by the store goes to a bank Arkansas. Basically Wal-Mart takes away from our local economy without any positives what so ever besides maybe a few low paying jobs that only increase our poverty level. Over the course of time as more and more customers flock to the store, local businesses lose money because they can't compete. Gradually stores close down from this lose.
When the superstore opened it didn't add on to it's old store but built a new store even further outside of town, mainly because my town expanded it's city limits to include the old Wal-Mart. The old building still sits there unoccupied because no other business needs that much space to operate. In my opinion Wal-Mart is a monopoly because they offer everything a consumer wants in one location like gas, food, clothing, and anything else someone might need. So all businesses in town have to compete against only one store.
Wal-Mart is raping America causing job lose, the depletion of local economies, and eliminating competition of other businesses. I'm just wondering when our government is going to step in and break up this monopoly before theres nothing else left.
When the superstore opened it didn't add on to it's old store but built a new store even further outside of town, mainly because my town expanded it's city limits to include the old Wal-Mart. The old building still sits there unoccupied because no other business needs that much space to operate. In my opinion Wal-Mart is a monopoly because they offer everything a consumer wants in one location like gas, food, clothing, and anything else someone might need. So all businesses in town have to compete against only one store.
Wal-Mart is raping America causing job lose, the depletion of local economies, and eliminating competition of other businesses. I'm just wondering when our government is going to step in and break up this monopoly before theres nothing else left.
Monday, September 15, 2008
post of the week?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/Ike_pain.ap/index.htm
So I'm not exactly sure what we're exactly supposed to post on... but I came across an article on the weekends "extreme" gas price spike. President Bush had announced that the country would be in a "pinch" because of rising gas prices due to Hurricane Ike's path in the Gulf Coast, but said that Americans wouldnt be subject to "gouging". However... it seems weird that one gas station went from $3.59 last Thursday night to $3.99 on Friday, and another, at the same beginning price, jumped to $4.69. When the two were within minutes of one another in location. This to me, seems like "gouging." I understand that the 3.99 station would sell out of gas sooner than the 4.69 station, and that might have been their strategic plan. President Bush said that if Americans suspected price gouging, then to report it to federal agencies, but I honestly don't think that would of any significance to do so...
So I'm not exactly sure what we're exactly supposed to post on... but I came across an article on the weekends "extreme" gas price spike. President Bush had announced that the country would be in a "pinch" because of rising gas prices due to Hurricane Ike's path in the Gulf Coast, but said that Americans wouldnt be subject to "gouging". However... it seems weird that one gas station went from $3.59 last Thursday night to $3.99 on Friday, and another, at the same beginning price, jumped to $4.69. When the two were within minutes of one another in location. This to me, seems like "gouging." I understand that the 3.99 station would sell out of gas sooner than the 4.69 station, and that might have been their strategic plan. President Bush said that if Americans suspected price gouging, then to report it to federal agencies, but I honestly don't think that would of any significance to do so...
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Blood for Sale
Why would someone want to profit off another's misfortune? After reading "Blood for Sale" I found myself asking that exact question. I give blood to the red cross as often as I can but I never imagined anybody would take money for it, even though I can see that if your life depended on it then price wouldn't be an issue. I guess I'm just naive. In my view of things a person should help others not for financial gain but to do a good for your fellow man. I seriously doubt someone would charge another person for saving their life. Of course that is a direct approach as oppose to giving blood where the person's life you save isn't known by you. So does that make it okay? It depends on who you ask because most people have the me first attitude where they feel that if they do something or give something then they should be compensated for whatever they give or do for someone else.
Society as a whole is changing, but is it for the better or worse? In my opinion it's getting worse because as a society we are becoming less dependent on our fellow man due to technology and other factors. So donating blood and helping others takes a back track to your own needs and so companies are then formed. These companies buy blood from anybody who meets a few requirements and in return they are compensated. The only thing is that drug addicts and alcoholics are their main clients and they can't be trusted for accurate information.
I'm all for giving blood as long as it's for the right reason and that is to help another without monetary compensation. If other countries can implement a program that promotes goodwill and the notion that helping others shouldn't be for their own gain then why can't we do the same.
Society as a whole is changing, but is it for the better or worse? In my opinion it's getting worse because as a society we are becoming less dependent on our fellow man due to technology and other factors. So donating blood and helping others takes a back track to your own needs and so companies are then formed. These companies buy blood from anybody who meets a few requirements and in return they are compensated. The only thing is that drug addicts and alcoholics are their main clients and they can't be trusted for accurate information.
I'm all for giving blood as long as it's for the right reason and that is to help another without monetary compensation. If other countries can implement a program that promotes goodwill and the notion that helping others shouldn't be for their own gain then why can't we do the same.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Unethical Behavior and Gas Prices
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/gas_poll/index.htm
Hey ... I'm not really sure if this is what we are supposed to be doing but this is an article similar to one I read a while back. When a sample of Americans were surveyed, sixty-two percent blame "unethical behavior" by industry players in regards to gas prices. Only thirty-two percent felt that the continual increase in price was due to supply and demand. Half the states in the U.S.A. are paying over $4 a gallon on average. When I was in Hawaii this summer, the gas was around $4.55. These prices have taken tolls on consumer budgets but as a result of high prices record profits are being made by oil companies. Some people project gas prices will level off at the end of the summer and others think it will continue to rise. Although many people are finding other ways of transportation to use minimal gas, many people who have the money to spend continue to pay the price at the pump. If the U.S.A. lifted some restrictions on domestic oil and drilling, the gas prices would not be so high. We clearly need more sources of oil in the U.S. as well as globally.
I feel personally the U.S. has done very little to help keep the gas prices from rising. The government knows that people will continue to pay for gas and as a result are allowing the price to continue to rise and taking advantage of the situation at hand. There are several things the government could do to help lower the prices of gas, however, the profit they are seeing is huge. Do you guys think it is unethical or merely a case of supply and demand?
Kristin
Hey ... I'm not really sure if this is what we are supposed to be doing but this is an article similar to one I read a while back. When a sample of Americans were surveyed, sixty-two percent blame "unethical behavior" by industry players in regards to gas prices. Only thirty-two percent felt that the continual increase in price was due to supply and demand. Half the states in the U.S.A. are paying over $4 a gallon on average. When I was in Hawaii this summer, the gas was around $4.55. These prices have taken tolls on consumer budgets but as a result of high prices record profits are being made by oil companies. Some people project gas prices will level off at the end of the summer and others think it will continue to rise. Although many people are finding other ways of transportation to use minimal gas, many people who have the money to spend continue to pay the price at the pump. If the U.S.A. lifted some restrictions on domestic oil and drilling, the gas prices would not be so high. We clearly need more sources of oil in the U.S. as well as globally.
I feel personally the U.S. has done very little to help keep the gas prices from rising. The government knows that people will continue to pay for gas and as a result are allowing the price to continue to rise and taking advantage of the situation at hand. There are several things the government could do to help lower the prices of gas, however, the profit they are seeing is huge. Do you guys think it is unethical or merely a case of supply and demand?
Kristin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)