According to the speaker, even the most honest, truthful, and ethical person will find himself or herself in a full-blown ethical crisis at some time in their career; no one escapes it. This claim is not supported by any solid research yet it affirms this is bound to happen. One can go through their career without facing full-blown ethical dilemmas. Although individuals may find themselves in ethical dilemmas, it is not correct to authoritatively state everyone will be involved in a full-blown one.
Definition and types of ethics
Ethics refers to the basic moral ground rules by which people live. One can have good or bad ethics, both of which are influenced by our conscience (self-awareness of behavior). This claim is accurate because every decision a person makes is out of their consciousness. Unconscious decisions are likely to be unethical while conscious ones are likely to be ethical.
Escaping ethical dilemma
To deal with an ethical dilemma, the speaker notes that one must be aware and equip themselves with knowledge and skills to deal with the dilemma. This is true because every ethical dilemma needs one to make a choice and this is influenced by one’s knowledge and skills. These skills can be obtained through training and reading literature.
Ethics at the workplace/employer expectations
Certain expectations at the workplace emanate from ethics and include observing rules, obeying the law, honesty in behavior and speech, putting company interest in mind, and respect for people and property. The statement is true because ethics are ground moral rules followed by a group of people. Organizations, therefore, develop their unique rules based on a code of ethics. While observing ethics, one may find themselves in an ethical dilemma.
Ethical dilemma at the workplace
According to the speaker, an ethical dilemma at the workplace is measured by the way a person:
- delivers on expectations.
- responds to a crisis.
- reacts to company policies/practices.
- makes decisions in person and in groups.
- fulfills his/her obligations to colleagues and customers.
- presents the company or its products to consumers.
- deals with external agencies, contractors, and vendors.
These measurements are applicable because they are a result of a decision made and can be seen as a reaction, an outcome, or any of the measurements stated. The speaker also states that one must be careful about how other people perceive their actions. This is in order because perception creates reality; people create understanding from perceptions and the understanding influences their actions. This means one’s action(s) has a bearing on others’ actions and therefore the need to care about how others perceive our actions.
Ethical dilemmas of conscience
According to the speaker, ethical dilemmas are categorized into two:
- Issues that have to do with one’s conscious where they have to choose from two or more alternatives where one or more stakeholders are involved. For example, a dilemma on whether or not to report harassing or intimidating supervisors. The action taken may or may not be right/ethical but one has a right to make a choice which also comes with consequences like being jailed for unethical actions or rewarded for an ethical one.
- Issues outside one’s sphere of influence and where one needs to make a choice, for example, covering up mismanagement by the supervisor, working with dishonest people, or sexual advances by the boss.
In these ethical dilemmas, one requires strategy and a system to help. People have different strategies for getting out of ethical dilemmas and which are determined by one’s ingenuity, experience, and character. While making choices to do with ethics, one must consider stakeholders to succeed in making the right decisions/choices. Stakeholders include receivers (those directly affected by the decision), third parties, workplace environment and culture, and you as a person.
The categorization of ethical dilemma is accurate because issues that confront a person and on which a decision must be made are either a result of an individual’s actions or actions of other people. Also, because a decision has to be made in the dilemma, knowledge, and skills are utilized. The knowledge and skills help one to develop strategies to deal with the dilemma.
Patent Waiver for COVID-19 Vaccine by the US
The Biden administration stated it would waive intellectual property patents for COVID-19 vaccines. This, it says, is because the vaccine supply for the US is secured and the need to boost vaccine production and supply in hard-hit countries, most of which are developing nations. The Biden administration stated that while it recognizes the need for intellectual property protection, COVID-19 presented a global health emergency that needed extraordinary measures such as the waiver. The US offered to supply raw materials needed for the production of the vaccine. The director general of the WHO termed the move as one that presents a monumental moment in fighting the disease and an indication of moral leadership. Moral leadership dictates that it is better to save lives first than allow a few companies to make profits and therefore the need for the waiver.
The Patent Waiver by the US government is necessary
In the article, it is stated that the waiver announcement by the US coincided with a surge in COVID-19 cases in nations struggling to procure and distribute COVID-19 vaccines. From this statement, it is expected that the mortality rate from COVID-19 in the countries would rise. The US is among the few countries in the world manufacturing the vaccine, at least early into the pandemic. Waiving the patent protection for the vaccine manufacturers means many other companies would manufacture the vaccine, increasing the availability and use of the vaccine in most affected areas. This would increase the number of people vaccinated against the disease, reducing the mortality rate. The Biden administration’s main objective, therefore, is to ensure many people are vaccinated and consequently reduce deaths. This is moral leadership, even though the move could hurt manufacturers in terms of profit margins.
The vaccine manufacturers such as Moderna and Pfizer are established companies already making profits. Continued patent protection does not make much meaning to the government’s revenue than if the government allowed more companies to manufacture the vaccine, sell, make profits, and pay more tax. The US government will therefore make more revenue by doing away with patent protection. Will it, therefore, make meaning that the government should allow a few companies to continue making profits at the expense of saving lives and collecting more taxes? The answer, to me, is it would be better for the government to waive the patent enabling it to collect more taxes and save more lives. If the spread is not curbed, more productive people would be affected, negatively impacting the economies of many nations around the world.
One of the claims made by the manufacturers is that the waiver would cause confusion between public and private partners, undermine global response and lead to the emergence of counterfeit vaccines. These claims are far-fetched because allowing more manufacturers around the world will ease supply logistics, making the vaccine more accessible. Further, public and private manufacturers of the same products have been in existence and measures have been put in place to avoid confusion and this will be extended to vaccine manufacturing.