英语论文网

aling from workers the nature of their health problems illustrate how adherence to industry and corporate goals can militate against individual moral behavior? Or do you think Dr. Smith did all he was morally obliged to do as an employee of an asbestos firm? What about Lanza’s suppression of data in his report?

Concealment, at first impression, could be considered as non-ethical and wrong in the aspect of finding and presenting the truth about almost anything in the society. Lies and deception would always be regarded as wrongful, regardless of the end to this means. When one person lies or hide something from somebody who ought to know and learn about such thing, judgment might state that the person lying or hiding is on the wrong track of the relationship, either in personal, professional and business. The issues of trust and faith would always prevail in which many other aspects would also be affected. Aspects which are the results and the outcomes of the said action of lying and deception would most of the time come out to be harmful, leading to the much destruction of relationships.

In the case of the Raybestos-Manhattan, a leading asbestos company, a different story of deception has occurred which concerns the health and even the life of its workers who are at high risk of asbestosis. This chronic lung infection can be developed by those working in the asbestos company that earns thousands or even millions of money. Despite the sad fact about this illness those workers can develop, the company’s medical director, Dr. Smith, concealed this information from the workers who were already positive with the illness because the company as a whole would be greatly affected that could lead to its closure and end. Even Anthony Lanza, who is also working in behalf of the company and of the company’s insurance carrier, created a manipulated research report about the facts about asbestosis as having more mild effects as compared with silicosis.

This adherence of the company’s medical director and insurance carrier was actually intended for the goodwill of the company’s policies and perhaps its whole status. Since the company’s production of asbestos can generate earnings and value, these workers who are its lifeblood don’t need to know about the condition. As much as they would like to keep their job, Smith and Lanza are also concerned about the company as a whole – including its shareholders, its managers, its customers and even its workers. The testimony of Smith during the nearness of his death would remain to be a reflection of his loyalty and obedience to the company’s goodwill and welfare.

Dr. Kenneth Smith was also following the ethics of his profession in which to keep confidential the status of his clients’ health and in this case, Dr. Smith’s client is the company and not the workers as to speak directly.

Anthony Lanza was also doing the same as he is expected just as Dr. Smith opted to do so. He also has a job and a company, wherein he duly signed a contract with, to protect and to comply with the signed contract.

Both Smith and Lanza were also trying to adhere the importance of positive feedback and the company’s brand name. This was actually evident in the statement of Dr. Smith that says (Shaw & Barry, 1995):

The reasons why the caution labels were not imple本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。