Anatomy of a hostile takeover

This episode is about a company and the obligation they have to the public to inform them when important people are at risk of serious health conditions. There was scheduled appointment with a reporter, but one fo the ceo's has suffered a stroke and could not make it. When reporter asks where he is, she is simply told that he had other business to attain to and that he would possibly meet with her another time. Was it right to mislead the reporter about the ceo's current health situation. On the one hand, she was actually not deceived, she was just not told anything. She was not given a definite response. On the other hand, ny not informing her, he puts the company at risk by making them seem untrustworthy. If the public, especially any stock holders find out abou this situation, no one will trust them. The company cannot mislead the stock holder or the public abou the company ot only because of legal issues, but it will destroy the companies' credibility.

Truth on trial

In this episode the basic question was to whom is the attorney's first obligation to? the court, the public, or the client? The scenario in question is about the product space heater. The manufacterur doesn't want to put a safety switch on it becasue it would cost too much to do so and therefore, causing the products price to raise. There had been report on the product setting off fires and this was brought to the manufacturers attention. When manufacturers seeks counsel, the question becomes, does the lawyer have an obligation to reveil how dangerous the products may be? I believe he does not. Especially if the lawyer has not been retained by the manufacturers, so he would not be entitled to attorney-client confidentiality. When the case is taken to court, is it acceptable if the lawyers carefully frame their questions to make it seem that there is doubt in the other sides' case? I believe it is acceptable because not only is that their job, but both sides believe that they are correctively seeking justice. The lawyer basically has the obligation to introduce that truth which helps him and incourage the jury to dis-believe what he knows to be the truth if it helps the other side.

the human experiment

The ethical issue at hand is, does finding a cure justify putting test subjects at risk? There is, of course, a need for human experimentation, but human experimentation also has a long history of dangerous and harmful experiments performed on nonconsenting patients. I believe it is only right to inform the patient of what is being done to them, especially when it comes to life threatening procedures. In one case, a man named Bill has AIDS. He was informed of a new treatment entitled h.o.p.e. it is not certain this treatment will help; in fact, it may do nothing at all. It is a costly treatment, but Bill is desperate. A group of physicians considered placeing a few patients on placebos and the other on the acutal drug. I think that is unethical to do because the patients are going in for treatment. Not be tricked into becoming scinences' guinea pigs. It would be different if they were informed, but they weren't.

Does doctor know best

The issue in this episode a woman named Betty has an unusual pap smear. Her doctor would like her to postpone her vacation trip in order for them to perform more test to determine whether or not it's cancerous. She leaves on her trip anyway. The doctor tries to locate her in a few days to get her to come in, but he has no luck. The doctor is getting worried, so he calls Betty's husband who is a golfing buddy. He tells the husband that he's concerned about Betty and the reasons for his concern. The issue was, did the doctor break doctor-patient confidentiality. I would say yes he did, but it is also hard to say that he did the wrong thing because his heart was in a good place. I more than likely would've done the same thing. When it comes to ethical terms, yes, he did an un-ethical thing. Betty could've had many reasons why she wasn't able to return the doctors phone calls or tell her husband. Another scenario is that Betty turns up pregnant but because of the cancer, the baby is now in danger. She would like to keep the baby, but doctors inform her that the baby will more than likely die anyway. If she has the surgery to keep the baby, they could both die. Dan, her husband, wants Betty to save herself, but Betty wants to save the child. Betty tells her doctor, "baby first, me second." The longer they wait, the better the chances are for the baby, but it becomes increasingly more harmful for Betty. Does the doctor do what's best for the baby or Betty. I would do what Betty wants. It's her body and her baby. I think that's the only fair thing to do.

Public Trust, Private Interests

In this episode they begin talking about ethics in government. One scenario is a politician is seen by a fellow politician hitting his wife at a party. Apparently he is just under a lot of pressure and that is why he lost it that night. Rumors begin to circulate about the events of that night. The other politician who happens to witness the event is now being questioned by the media. He's asked if he would lie about it and he says no. His response would simply be that he does not discuss private affairs. I would do the same thing. I would not discuss it with the media, but I would definately try to speak to my collegue about the issues surrounding his home life. Another scenario is the same politician is using cocaine. The politician denies it, but others are trying to make him take a drug test. I absoultely agree with their actions. I believe because he is in politics, he can't afford to be involved in such a scandal.

Hotel Rwanda Questions

1. what are some of the overriding ethical issues depicted in this movie?
the main ethical issue in this movie is genocide. In the country of Rwanda, about ten years ago, the Hutu people believed that it was their duty to annihilate the Tutsi people because they felt they were inferior and that the Tutsi intruders on their land. Another ethical issue that was depicted in the movie was the choices the main character, Paul rusesabagina, had to make. He had and obligation to his own family to protect them first, but he also knew that he couldn't turn his back on his neighbors and the rest of his countrymen that turned to his hotel for refuge. Throughout the movie, Paul tries to protect his family andkeep the hotel he manages up and running, whilst hiding the many Tutsi refugees.

2. How do you describe the character of Paul Rusesabagina?
His character can only be described as brave, intelligent, and kindhearted. In the beginning of the movie, is main concern is only for his family, but as time progresses he sees that he is the only one whom can help these people.

3. What possible resolutions could have been suggested for the Rwandan people, bot Hutu and Tutsi?
This is a very tough question. If I had the answer, more than likely it would've been implemented back then. I guess the Tutsi people should've fought back harder. They should've stolen the Hutu weapons and began their own militia. Or another option would've been then government of Rwanda. They should've stepped in and taken down the Hutu regime. There actually isn't an answer that I can think of that may have helped. Violence will not stop violence. It seems violence finds its way to even the most peaceful of people.

to defend a killer

The main question from the video is does our legal system force lawyers to step outside the norms of moral conduct or is such single minded zealousness the only way a defendants rights can be protected? I believe that it is necessary for lawyers to act in such a manner in order to protect their client's rights. Once the case goes public, the client will be under all sorts of ridicule and accusations coming from not only the law, but perhaps their own neighbors and family members. During this time, it is important the lawyer protect the client in every way they can until the end of the trial. If I was asked to defend someone who was accused of murder, I would first ask for all the details. Was the crime committed out of self defense or was it premeditated. I would take the case if it was out of self defense, but I don't believe I could for any other kind of situation. That's probably why I could not be a defense attorney.