Life and Liberty

Welcome back to Contemplative Being. Last week I watched the 2009 film My Sister’s Keeper and it got me thinking about a rather controversial topic, euthanasia. Spoiler alert, if you have never seen the film but plan to skip down to the next paragraph but before you do be advised that the movie is not about euthanasia, click here if you would like to see the IMDb page for it. Okay, skip down now. The movie is about a family with a son and two daughters. The eldest daughter has leukemia and her little sister was genetically engineered to be a genetic match to the sick child. Unfortunately as of yet there is no cure for leukemia so the only option is to manage it through treatment so whenever the sick child was at a point where she needed some type of donation the younger healthy genetic match provided the blood or marrow. Eventually the cancer got to a point where the sick child was bed ridden unable to do anything because her organs particularly her kidneys were failing. The mother refused to realize that even with a new kidney the sick child would not regain much quality of life and any improvements would be short-lived until something else in her body failed. The sick child wanted to die and her doctors and father knew it was time but her mother would not give in. The younger sister could have donated a kidney but at the request of her older sister would not allow her parents to make her donate it. In the end the sick child dies. So now you see why I thought the topic of euthanasia would be interesting.

Back in October, 2014 the story of Brittney Maynard hit the news stand and quickly became the topic of discussion on every news outlet. Brittney was a 29 year old recently married woman in the prime of her life. One day she began suffering from severe headaches not unlike countless others that suffer from migraines except for her it was different, she was diagnosed with a large brain tumor and given six months to live. As you would expect this diagnosis turned her entire life up –side-down, she immediately went into surgery but the tumor was so large it could not be removed. At this point she faced a choice, proceed with whole head chemotherapy and the myriad of life sucking side-effects that comes with it in hopes of extending her life or not to undergo treatment and enjoy the rest of her time on earth and die when the cancer takes her life. Brittney being of sound mind decided that neither of these choices were acceptable, she wanted to enjoy the rest of her time as best she could but when the illness got to a point where her quality of life was gone, that was when it was time to die (Maynard, 2014).

Currently euthanasia also known as assisted suicide is legal in a handful of countries and three U.S. states Washington, Oregon and Montana. Brittney and her husband lived in California so in order for her to have a right to die she moved to Oregon and went through all the hoops required to qualify to be able to get the pill to end her life.  She chose to use the time she had left to travel with her family instead of living in a hospital suffering from the side-effects of treatment. On November 2^nd a few days after celebrating her husband’s birthday she reached a point in the progression of her cancer where she could no longer function. With her family and best friend at her side she lay in her bed and took the pill that ended her life.    

The ethical question here is whether or not people of sound mind that are suffering with physical pain and have lost all quality of life have the right to die. In considering this question there are two theories of ethical decision making, utilitarian and deontological. Utilitarian theory holds that the most ethical decision is to take the action that is for the greater good. Deontological theory holds that the most ethical decision is the one based on rules and duty.  Giving careful consideration to both theories I believe that they both support an individual’s right to a dignified death. Using the utilitarian approach this decision is ethical because it is in supports the greatest good. Prolonging pain and suffering of the terminal person and their family with no quality of life is not in anyone’s best interest. Using the deontological theory the same conclusion is drawn because of the duty to respect an individual’s life and avoid harming others. To respect is to accept what an individual wants and if that want is to die with dignity that is their choice and since it does not harm anyone else it is affirmed.

I could never imagine being faced with a terminal illness like Britney and her family was but you never know what life has in store for you. The decision of what to do when facing such a situation must be incredibly difficult but it has to be made and it is only right for all the options to be on the table. In this country that holds individual liberty and freedom at its core the right to a dignified death should be protected. 

Thanks for reading, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section. 

References and Related Links 

Maynard, B. (2014). My right to death with dignity at 29. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity/

The Brittany Maynard Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.thebrittanyfund.org/ 

State of the Union

I hope all of you watched the State of the Union address this past Tuesday. Democracy only works correctly when those that it represents are actively engaged and aware. The State of the Union address is a great way to get a picture of what the President aspires to do and I think that is something that every citizen should be aware of whether you agree with him or not.

While watching the speech I identified several topics that the President talked about that I think have ethical impacts for the country as a whole and those in the field of public administration.  The first subject (and these are not in any particular order) is the closing down of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The U.S prison that resides in Cuba is like an ethical black hole. The prison exists off of U.S. soil as a way to avoid having to follow the laws of this country. Gitmo as it is referred to has been the home of some really terrible people and has been the site of really terrible actions. Call it what you will, enhanced interrogation, torture, legal or not it is most definitely unethical in my opinion. Sometimes it is hard to believe that a country such as ours that prides itself in being a beacon of morality and ethical correctness could ever have created a place like Gitmo. This country is one that believes in the rule of law so having a place where the laws do not apply is perplexing. We could get into a debate about torture and whether or not torture can ever be justified but let's leave this one here for now.

Another significant topic that President Obama touched upon was the beginning of talks between the U.S. and Cuba. It has been 50 years since the U.S. severed political and economic ties with Cuba in hopes that they would abandon communism it it is abundantly clear that the policy like all of our other attempts to change Cuba's political structure failed. As a result of the long standing restrictions we have kept families apart and Cubans from being able to enjoy a stronger economy. I think both of these things are unethical. China became a communist nation 10 years earlier than Cuba did but our policies could not be more different. Is it right to treat one country differently and subject its people to even worse conditions than they already are stuck with just because that country is smaller and less powerful? China has treated its people far worse than Cuba ever did but since we need them we can overlook their actions? That hardly seems ethical to me.

Yet another topic that was discussed in the speech is the proposal to require employers to provide paid sick leave. We are lucky enough to live in one of the most advanced and powerful nations on earth and yet we are the only advanced country that does not treat it's workers accordingly. President Obama stated that 43 million Americans that work in the private sector do not get paid sick leave. Is it ethical to make a parent decide whether it is more important to go to work and be able to afford rent, food, medicine or stay home with a sick child? Again, I think not.

The last topic I would like to discuss is that of the proposed tax reform child credit. Again, this country prides itself in being pro family and yet the current tax code penalises most dual income families. The aptly named marriage penalty is in complete disagreement with the values we hold in this country. A long time ago it was possible for a single income household to thrive but that is no longer the case and the only way to live comfortably is for both parents to work. It is unethical for the government to punish middle class families that are doing what they have to to support themselves. The tax credit will not fix this problem but it will provide some relief to those families with children and that is a good place to start.

So there are a number of different philosophical frameworks for ethics divine law, natural, law, social contract, utilitarianism and impartiality. I subscribe to the latter. Impartiality is vary similar to utilitarianism in that they both have the same central premise. It is actually a combination of three ideas: first in determining what to do we should be guided by the expected outcomes of our own actions, we should do whatever will have the best outcomes. Second in determining which outcomes are best, we should give the greatest weight to the happiness or unhappiness that would be caused, we should do whatever will cause the most happiness or the least unhappiness. And finally, the principle assumes that every one's happiness is equally as important as anyone else's. Where Impartiality differs is when it comes to personal relationships and decision making. This framework permits for one to make a decision that may not be for the greater good but it does serve one's own needs better. This might help you get a better picture of how I approach decisions and ethics in general. If you would like to find out what framework you match up with click here and complete the philosopher quiz, it is not perfect but it does a pretty decent job.

Thanks for reading.

Free Stuff

Welcome back to my blog Contemplative Being. Today I thought I would share some of my thoughts regarding ethics in the news. Last Sunday morning I woke up and turned on the local news as I do every morning. It may have been a slow news day because the first thing I hear is that Chris Christie the Republican Governor of New Jersey was flying out to Green Bay to watch the Packers play against the Dallas Cowboys (Florio, M. 2015). Now that in itself is not newsworthy no matter how slow of a news day it may be, there are tons of sports fans that follow their teams around the country, what makes it news worthy is that he bought his own tickets both for the flight and to the game. This is what caught my attention because apparently Governor Christie does not typically pay for his travel and tickets for Cowboys games. At first this story reminded me of a news report from back in 2010 about then DC Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) not playing nice and sharing tickets to the Washington Nationals games with the DC Council Members (Craig, T. 2010). I had no idea that the Mayor’s office receives 20 box seat tickets to every Nationals home game but it makes sense if you think about it because the city spends a ton of money to support local teams particularly when it comes to building the stadium. As it turns out this sort of arrangement is fairly typical in cities with sports teams and in DC there are similar deals with the Verizon Center home of the Capitals and Wizards.

I do not see any ethical issues when the tickets are used as intended, the water gets murky however when Council Members use the tickets for themselves or for political gain. It is not far fetched to think DC Council Members might give tickets to choice games to their friends or donors and although this may not technically violate any laws it is ethically questionable. The DC Council has been working recently to overhaul its ethics rules due to numerous lapses in conduct over the past several years.

Hold on a second, Chris Christie is the Governor of New Jersey so why has he been getting free travel and tickets to Cowboys games? Oh, I see, the Governor is friends with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and he invites Christie on expenses paid trips to watch the games. Fortunately Christie and Jones are personal friends because this means that the receipt of gifts from Jones is not an ethics violation according to New Jersey law so case closed.

Now the Governor like the DC Council is no stranger to matters of ethical concern so I did a bit of googling and came across a news report from just last week on January 6, 2015. The story was about news that has surfaced that in 2013 Governor Christie had encouraged the Port Authority to give a contract to a firm owned by Jerry Jones (The Associated Press. 2015). This is where things get interesting on the ethical front. The Port Authority claims that the proposal submitted by Jones’s company was the best one and that is why it was selected, if this is true then there is no problem unless of course they received inside information or something like that which would be a violation of course.

I do not know if the DC Council Members have misused the tickets that are provided to them for Nationals games or any other DC team and I do not know if Governor Christie has used his position to benefit himself and or his friends. What I do know that in either case ethical values are at the center. I was doing some research for class this past week when I came across an article in the journal Public Administration Review about codes of ethics in public administration. The article talked about the importance of an ethical code of behavior at the profession level. It also talks about how the organization that was created back in 1939 to create a code for public administrators did not actually create one until 1984 (Code of Ethics. 2013). The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) is the professional organization for public administrators and it operates similarly to other professional organizations such as the American Architecture Institute for architects or the American Society of Journalists and Authors for journalists and authors. The purpose of professional organizations is of course to bring people with similar interests together but also to provide them with a basic ethical guideline based on the fundamentals of the profession. Often these organizations have memberships and fees if you want to be able to add them to your resume or business card but even if you are not an active paying member you are still bound by the ethical standards of your profession which these groups espouse. The ethics code for public administrators is general as a result of the diverse nature of the profession but it is meaningful nonetheless. Public administrators especially those in elected office may forget that they are public administrators, and I have no doubt that the constant temptations of the perks of office or seemingly harmless gestures from friendship are hard to resist but as servants of the public we must. Ethical codes exist to ensure that we remain focused on the people we serve and not ourselves. Chris Christie, the DC Council and countless other public servants need to be reminded from time to time that although they may not be paying members of their profession’s organization they still must abide by their fundamental ethical standards.  

Thanks for stopping by, stop in next week for another thought provoking session at Contemplative Being.

Below are links to the articles and news stories mentioned above.

The Associated Press (2015, January 6) Christie Under Fire Due to Gifts From Cowboys Owner. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Christie-Under-Fire-Due-to-Gifts-From-Cowboys-Owner-287733781.html

Craig, T. (2010, March 12). Fenty gives D.C. Council season tickets to Nationals games. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031104118.html

Florio, M. (2015, January 10). Chris Christie will pay his own way to Green Bay. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/10/chris-christie-will-pay-his-own-way-to-green-bay/

Savra, James H. “Who Are the Keepers of the Code? Articulating and Upholding Ethical Standards in the Field of Public Administration” Public Administration Review. 74(5) July, (2014). Pg. 561-9. Doi 10.1111/puar.12230 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/puar.12230

Code of Ethics. (2013). Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.aspanet.org/public/ASPA/About_ASPA/Code_of_Ethics/ASPA/Resources/Code_of_Ethics/Code_of_Ethics1.aspx?hkey=222cd7a5-3997-425a-8a12-5284f81046a8

Greetings

My name is Benjamin Reyes but you can call me Ben. This is my first ever blog so I am not entirely sure how this all works but I am fairly confident I will be able to figure it out sooner or later. Until then I apologize for any weird formatting or other stuff like that.

Now that you know my name you must be wondering what the heck I am doing here. We humans have the unique ability of being able to engage in contemplation. As contemplative beings we can analyze, evaluate and reason. This ability that we all have is something I wish to explore with you and that is the purpose of this blog.

Now for a bit more about me. I am a federal employee and have been for six years and counting. I live in the Washington, DC metro area and I love it. I am also currently in the process of earning a Masters in Public Administration (MPA). As an MPA student I have to read ridiculous amounts and part of the reason for this blog is so that I can share some of my thoughts about said readings with you.

I will begin the blog by discussing ethics in the realm of public administration primarily because that is one of the classes I am taking at the moment. My goal is to post weekly on either Friday or Saturday. Stay tuned as my first post on the subject of ethics will be next week. Bookmark www.contemplativebeing.blogspot.com