Ethics Midterm Exam

A Million Little Pieces

In 2003, publisher Doubleday released James Frey’s book A Million Little Pieces, marketing
it as a memoir about Frey’s struggles with alcohol and drug addiction. In 2005, the book
was selected for Oprah’s Book Club, in part for the inspiring and supposedly true story of
Frey’s overcoming addiction. The publicity from The Oprah Winfrey Show sparked strong
sales for the book, which topped bestseller lists in the following weeks.

On January 8, 2006, investigative website The Smoking Gun published an exposé

describing numerous exaggerations and fabrications in Frey’s account of his life story as
written, creating controversy regarding the truthfulness of the book as a “memoir.” When
Frey first appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2005, he emphasized his honesty: “If I
was going to write a book that was true, and I was going to write a book that was honest,
then I was going to have to write about myself in very negative ways.” As he did so, he
expanded on falsehoods that appeared in the book.

Frey and his publisher, Nan Talese, were unable to effectively refute The Smoking Gun
allegations. When Winfrey invited Frey back on her show, she harangued him for lying,
saying that she felt “duped” and that Frey had “betrayed millions of readers.” Talese
described Winfrey’s rebuke of Frey as “mean and self-serving,” while critics of Frey saw him
as opportunistic.

Frey defended the right of authors and memoirists to draw upon their memories, not only
upon documented facts: “I wanted the stories in the book to ebb and flow, to have dramatic
arcs, to have the tension that all great stories require.” Authors and literary critics have
echoed this sentiment, noting that memoirs are not necessarily the same genre as
biographies or autobiographies. When asked about this controversy, author Joyce Carol
Oates stated, “the tradition of personal memoir has always been highly ‘fictionalized’ —
colored with an individual’s own ‘emotional truth’ … This is an ethical issue…with
convincing arguments on both sides. In the end, [Winfrey] had to defend her own ethical
standards of truth on her television program, which was courageous of her; and [Talese]
had to defend her standards as a longtime revered editor, which was courageous of her.”
Discussion Questions

1. In what ways is self-serving bias apparent in this case regarding James Frey?
Regarding Oprah Winfrey? Do you think one’s position is more ethically defensible
than the other’s? Why or why not?

Answer:

Self-serving bias is apparent in James Frey's decision to exaggerate and fabricate

aspects of his life story in order to make his memoir more compelling. He also defended
the right of authors to draw upon their memories. Oprah Winfrey's decision to harangue
Frey for lying and betraying millions of readers could also be seen as self -serving, as
she had to defend her own ethical standards of truth on her television program. It could
be argued that Frey's position is less ethically defensible as he knowingly presented
false information as true, while Winfrey's position is more ethically defensible as she
held Frey accountable for his actions.

2. Do you believe authors should adhere only to fact in memoirs? Why or why not? Do
you think authors have a responsibility to tell the truth to their audiences? Explain.

Answer:

Yes, because memoirs should adhere only to fact, as they are marketed as non-fiction
and readers have the right to know the truth. Yes, authors do have a responsibility, to
tell the truth to their audiences, but how they present that truth may be open to
interpretation.

3. Cultural critic Laura Kipnis writes, “If Frey, an aspiring novelist, harnessed himself to
the engine of the recovery narrative to get his story into print, his readers
compromised themselves too, swallowing his writerly affectations like pills mashed
up in applesauce, so eager for a fix of recovery lit that the eye-blinking grandiosities
[of the book] barely registered.” Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
 Answer:

Yes, because it suggests that Frey's readers were so eager for a fix of recovery lit that
they didn't question the veracity of his story. Others may disagree, as it suggests that
readers are complicit in Frey's deception.

4. Do you know people who seem to remember past events in their lives in ways that
put themselves in a very favorable light? Do you have this tendency? Explain with
examples.

Answer:

Yes, I may remember past events in their lives in a way that puts me in a favorable light.
This can be seen in examples of good things about a past relationship, or only
remembering the successful moments of a past project.

5. Can you think of other examples in politics, newspapers, business, or your everyday
life that seem to illustrate the impact of the self-serving bias? Explain with examples.

Answer:

Businesses may only release positive information about their products or services while
withholding negative information. In everyday life, individuals may only share positive
aspects of their lives on social media, while hiding negative aspects, which can create a
skewed perception of reality.

Cyber Harassment
In many ways, social media platforms have created great benefits for our societies by
expanding and diversifying the ways people communicate with each other, and yet these
platforms also have the power to cause harm. Posting hurtful messages about other people
is a form of harassment known as cyberbullying. Some acts of cyberbullying may not only
be considered slanderous, but also lead to serious consequences. In 2010, Rutgers
University student Tyler Clementi jumped to his death a few days after his roommate used a
webcam to observe and tweet about Tyler’s sexual encounter with another man. Jane
Clementi, Tyler’s mother, stated, “In this digital world, we need to teach our youngsters that
their actions have consequences, that their words have real power to hurt or to help. They
must be encouraged to choose to build people up and not tear them down.”

In 2013, Idalia Hernández Ramos, a middle school teacher in Mexico, was a victim of cyber
harassment. After discovering that one of her students tweeted that the teacher was a
“bitch” and a “whore,” Hernández confronted the girl during a lesson on social media
etiquette. Inquiring why the girl would post such hurtful messages that could harm the
teacher’s reputation, the student meekly replied that she was upset at the time. The teacher
responded that she was very upset by the student’s actions. Demanding a public apology in
front of the class, Hernández stated that she would not allow “young brats” to call her those
names. Hernández uploaded a video of this confrontation online, attracting much attention.

While Hernández was subject to cyber harassment, some felt she went too far by
confronting the student in the classroom and posting the video for the public to see, raising
concerns over the privacy and rights of the student. Sameer Hinduja, who writes for the
Cyberbullying Research Center, notes, “We do need to remain gracious and understanding
towards teens when they demonstrate immaturity.” Confronting instances of a teenager
venting her anger may infringe upon her basic rights to freedom of speech and expression.
Yet, as Hinduja explains, teacher and student were both perpetrators and victims of cyber
harassment. All the concerns of both parties must be considered and, as Hinduja wrote,
“The worth of one’s dignity should not be on a sliding scale depending on how old you are.”

Discussion Questions

1. In trying to teach the student a lesson about taking responsibility for her actions, did
the teacher go too far and become a bully? Why or why not? Does she deserve to
be fired for her actions?

Answer:

In trying to teach the student a lesson about taking responsibility for her actions, the
teacher may have gone too far by confronting the student in the classroom and posting
the video for the public to see. Whether or not the teacher deserves to be fired for her
actions would depend on the specific policies and procedures in place at the school.
2. What punishment does the student deserve? Why?

Answer:

The student deserves some form of punishment for her actions, such as a formal
apology and education on the impact of cyberbullying. It is important to remember that
the student is still a child and may not fully understand the gravity of her actions.

3. Who is the victim in this case? The teacher or the student? Was one victimized more
than the other? Explain.

Answer:

Both the teacher and the student are victims of cyber harassment in this case. The
teacher was targeted with hurtful language, while the student's actions may have
serious consequences for her future. I think the teacher was the one victimized because
she’s older than the student and she was accused by a piece of misleading information.

4. Do victims have the right to defend themselves against bullies? What if they go
through the proper channels to report bullying and it doesn’t stop?

Answer:

Victims have the right to defend themselves against bullies, but the methods they use
should be appropriate and respectful of the rights of others. If proper channels for
reporting bullying are not effective, victims may need to seek other forms of support
such as counseling or legal action.

5. How should compassion play a role in judging other’s actions?

Answer:

Compassion should play a role in judging others' actions by understanding that people
make mistakes and may not fully understand the impact of their actions.

6. How are factors like age and gender used to “excuse” unethical behavior? (ie. “Boys
will be boys” or “She’s too young/old to understand that what she did is wrong”) Can
you think of any other factors that are sometimes used to excuse unethical
behavior?
 Answer:

Factors like age and gender are often used to excuse unethical behavior, but they
should not be used as a justification for harmful actions. Other factors that may be used
to excuse unethical behavior include socioeconomic status, race, and mental health.

7. How is cyberbullying similar or different from face-to-face bullying? Is one more

harmful than the other? Explain.

Answer:

Cyberbullying is similar to face-to-face bullying in that it involves the use of hurtful

language or actions to harm others. However, cyberbullying can be more harmful as it
can reach a larger audience and may be more difficult to escape from.

8. Do you know anyone who has been the victim of cyber-bullying? What types of harm
did this person experience?

Answer:

My friend was a victim of cyberbullying. The bullies post fake news saying that his
cheating on the exam but the truth is, he doesn’t cheat. It spread around the campus
and reached his teachers who confronted him about the rumors. After that he
experienced depression, and he even tried to suicide.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

In the context of health care in the United States, the value on autonomy and liberty was
cogently expressed by Justice Benjamin Cardozo in Schloendorff v. Society of New York
Hospitals (1914), when he wrote, “Every human being of adult years and sound min d has a
right to determine what shall be done with his own body.” This case established the
principle of informed consent and has become central to modern medical practice ethics.
However, a number of events since 1914 have illustrated how the autonomy of patients may
be overridden. In Buck v. Bell (1927), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the
involuntary sterilization of “mental defectives,” then a widespread practice in the U.S., was
justified, stating, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Another example, the
Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which African-American males were denied life-saving
treatment for syphilis as part of a scientific study of the natural course of the disease, began
in 1932 and was not stopped until 1972.

Providing advice related to topics of bioethics, the President’s Commission for the Study of
Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research stated, “Informed
consent is rooted in the fundamental recognition—reflected in the legal presumption of
competency—that adults are entitled to accept or reject health care interventions on the
basis of their own personal values and in furtherance of their own personal goals.” But what
of circumstances where patients are deemed incompetent through judicial proceedin gs, and
where someone else is designated to make decisions on behalf of a mentally incompetent
individual?
Consider the following case:

A middle aged man was involuntarily committed to a state psychiatric hospital because he
was considered dangerous to others due to severe paranoid thinking. His violent behavior
was controlled only by injectable medications, which were initially administered against his
will. He had been declared mentally incompetent, and the decisions to approve the use of
psychotropic medications were made by his adult son who had been awarded guardianship
and who held medical power of attorney.

While the medications suppressed the patient’s violent agitation, they made little impact on
his paranoid symptoms. His chances of being able to return to his home community
appeared remote. However, a new drug was introduced into the hospital formulary which, if
used with this patient, offered the strong possibility that he could return home. The drug,
however, was only available in a pill form, and the patient’s paranoia included fears that
others would try to poison him. The suggestion was made to grind up the pill and
surreptitiously administer the drug by mixing it in pudding.

Hospital staff checked with the patient’s son and obtained informed consent from him. The
“personal values and…personal goals” of the son and other family members were seen to
substitute for those of the mentally incompetent patient—and these goals included the
desire for the patient to live outside of an institution and close to loved ones in the
community. This was the explicitly stated rationale for the son’s agreeing to the proposal to
hide the medication in food. However, staff were uncomfortable about deceiving the patient,
despite having obtained informed consent from the patient’s guardian.
Discussion Questions

1. In the case study above, do you think the ends justify the means? In other words,
does the goal of discharging the patient from an institutional setting into normal
community living justify deceiving him? Explain your reasoning.

Answer:

The end goal of discharging the patient from an institutional setting and returning him to
normal community living is important and desirable, but the means of achieving this
goal, deceiving the patient and raises ethical concerns. Deceiving a patient in this way
undermines their autonomy and trust in the healthcare system. Additionally, the patient's
right to self-determination and autonomy should be respected, regardless of his mental
state.

2. Do you think it is ever ethically permissible to deceive clients? Under what

circumstances? Why or why not?

Answer:

Deceiving clients is generally considered unethical in healthcare, as it undermine s the

principles of informed consent and trust in the healthcare system. However, in rare
cases, such as when a patient is in immediate danger or when withholding information
would cause more harm than good, deception may be deemed ethically permissible.

3. To what degree should family members or legal guardians have full capacity to make
decisions or give consent on behalf of those under their care? Explain.

Answer:

Family members or legal guardians should have the capacity to make decisions or give
consent on behalf of those under their care, but their authority should be limited by the
principle of respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the patient.

4. Do you think severely mentally ill people retain any rights “to determine what shall be
done with [their] own [bodies]?” Why or why not?
Answer:

Severely mentally ill people retain the right to self-determination and autonomy, but their
decision-making capacity may be limited by their condition. In such cases, legal
guardians or family members should be involved in the decision-making process, but
their decisions should be guided by the patient's wishes and best interests.

5. Are there risks in surreptitiously medicating a paranoid patient? Would this confirm
the patient’s delusions of being “poisoned” by others or escalate his resistance to
treatment? Are these risks worth taking in view of the potential to dramatically
improve his mental functioning and reduce his suffering?

Answer:

Surreptitiously medicating a paranoid patient carries a number of risks, including

undermining the trust and autonomy of the patient, and potentially exacerbating their
paranoid symptoms. It would be important to consider alternative treatment options,
including addressing the patient's fears and concerns in a therapeutic setting, before
resorting to surreptitious medication.

6. Since psychiatric patients have the right to treatment, does the strategy to
surreptitiously administer medications serve this goal? Do you think this is ethically
justifiable? Why or why not?

Answer:

The right to treatment for psychiatric patients is an important principle in healthcare, but
the strategy of surreptitiously administering medications raises ethical concerns. The
principle of informed consent requires that patients be provided with accurate and
complete information about their treatment options so they can make an informed
decision about their care.

7. Does the history of the forcible treatments of persons with disabilities and other
powerless populations affect how you view this case? Explain.
 Answer:

The history of forcible treatment of persons with disabilities and other powerless
populations does affect how I view this case, as it highlights the importance of protecting
the rights and autonomy of vulnerable groups.

The Central Park Five

In 1989, a young woman jogging in New York’s Central Park was raped and beaten nearly
to death. This high-profile attack upon a white investment banker in the heart of the city
was quickly called the “crime of the century.” There was intense public pressure to solve
the case and, indeed, the police quickly arrested five young (14 to 16 years old) men who
were black and Latino. They had been part of a larger group of young men harassing
passersby in another part of the park.

After intense interrogations ranging from 14 to 30 hours in length, four of the five confessed
to the crime. The five were charged with the attack. Importantly, (a) the boys soon
recanted their confessions which they blamed on police coercion, (b) no phy sical evidence
linked the young men to the crime, (c) no physical evidence indicated that there was more
than one attacker, (d) the semen found in the victim did not match any of the young men,
and (e) the four confessions were inconsistent with each other and with the physical
evidence from the crime scene. Nonetheless, the young men were convicted and sent to
jail. Real estate developer Donald Trump called for their swift execution in a full-page
newspaper ad.

Thirteen years later, Matias Reyes, who was serving a life sentence for murder, confessed
to the crime. Indeed, his DNA matched the semen recovered from the victim. His was the
only semen recovered from the victim. The attack on the jogger was similar in M.O. to his
other rapes, none of which involved any other perpetrator.

Eventually, the Central Park 5 settled a wrongful conviction lawsuit with the City of New
York for $41 million.

However, the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of their innocence did not change
the minds of:
•The lead prosecutor, who claimed that the five young men were indeed still guilty and that
Reyes was simply an additional perpetrator—an “unindicted co-ejaculator.”

•The head detective, who said: ‘This lunatic [Reyes] concocts this wild story and these
people fell for it.”

•Donald Trump who in 2013 tweeted regarding Ken Burns’ award-winning documentary on
the Central Park 5’s innocence: “The Central Park Five documentary was a one -sided piece
of garbage that didn’t explain the horrific crimes of these young men while in park.”

•The second chair lawyer in the prosecution who in 2018 still finds the taped confessions
“pretty compelling” notwithstanding their inconsistencies and the fact that of the first 325
DNA exonerations in the U.S., 27% involved false confessions.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you see instances of cognitive dissonance in this case study? Explain.

Answer:

There are instances of cognitive dissonance in this case study, as the lead prosecutor,
head detective, and Donald Trump all seemed to find it difficult to accept the new
evidence regarding Reyes' guilt, despite the fact that the evidence clearly indicated that
the Central Park 5 were innocent and Reyes was the sole perpetrator.

2. Why do you think the two prosecutors and the police officer found it difficult to accept
the new evidence regarding Reyes’ guilt?

Answer:

The two prosecutors and the police officer may have found it difficult to accept the new
evidence regarding Reyes' guilt because they were heavily invested in the convictions of
the Central Park 5, and may have felt that acknowledging their mistake would reflect
poorly on their abilities and integrity.

3. Why do you think Donald Trump finds it difficult to accept the new evidence
regarding Reyes’ guilt?
 Answer:

Donald Trump may have found it difficult to accept the new evidence regarding Reyes'
guilt because he had previously taken a strong public stance in calling for the swift
execution of the Central Park 5, and acknowledging their innocence would hav e
reflected poorly on his judgment and integrity.

4. Sears and colleagues suggest that the following factors can render cognitive
dissonance especially acute. Were any of them at play in the Central Park 5 case?

• Irrevocable commitment—the stronger one is committed to a position, the more intense

will be the dissonance stemming from evidence indicating that the position is wrong.
• Foreseeable consequences—the more easily foreseen the consequences of taking an
erroneous position, the more acute will be the dissonance when evidence starts to arise that
the position is wrong.
• Responsibility for consequences—the more someone feels personally responsible for the
erroneous position take, the more acute he or she will feel the dissonance when evidence
starts to arise that the position is wrong
• Effort—the more effort someone has put into taking the erroneous position, the more
wedded he or she will be to it and the more they will resist new, inconsistent evidence.

Answer:
Factors that can render cognitive dissonance especially acute were at play in the
Central Park 5 case. Irrevocable commitment, foreseeable consequences, responsibility
for consequences and effort were all at play. The lead prosecutor, head detective, and
Donald Trump had all publicly committed to the guilt of the Central Park 5, they had all
foreseen the consequences of taking an erroneous position, they all felt responsible for
the consequences of their actions and they had all put in effort in maintaining their
stance.

5 Do you find it difficult to accept evidence indicating that a position you have publicly
maintained in the past is wrong?

Answer:

For me, It is important to be open-minded and willing to consider new information, even
if it contradicts previously held beliefs.
 6. The Central Park 5 had been released from jail by the time Reyes confessed. If they
had still been in jail, and prosecutors and police resisted their release despite Reyes’
confession and the supporting evidence, would that have been an unethical act on
their part?

Answer:

It would have been a grave injustice and violation of their rights. It is the duty of the
authorities to re-investigate the case and consider new evidence, even if it contradicts
their previous convictions, in order to ensure that justice is served.

7. What factors discussed in other Ethics Unwrapped videos might have contributed to
a “rush to judgment” by police and prosecutors in 1989?

Answer:

Meet Me at Starbucks
On April 12, 2018, at a Starbucks location in Philadelphia, two black men, Rashon Nelson
and Donte Robinson, were waiting for a friend, Andrew Yaffe. Nelson and Robinson were
entrepreneurs and were going to discuss business investment opportunities with Yaffe, a
white real estate developer. As they waited, an employee asked if she could help them.
They said “no,” that they were just waiting for a business meeting. Then a manager told
Nelson that he couldn’t use the restroom because he was not a paying customer.

Because the two men had not purchased anything yet, a store manager called police, even
though Robinson had been a customer at the store for almost a decade and both men had
used the store location for business meetings before. At least six Philadelphia Police
Department officers arrived. The police officers did not ask the men any questions; they just
demanded that they leave immediately. They declined. The police officers then proceeded
to arrest the men for trespassing. As the arrest occurred, Mr. Yaffe arrived. He said: “Why
would they be asked to leave? Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? It’s absolute
discrimination.” The two men were taken out in handcuffs. They were taken to the police
station, photographed, and fingerprinted. They were held for almost nine hours before being
released from custody. Prosecutors decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge
the men with a crime.
After a video of the arrest went viral, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson released a statement:
“We apologize to the two individuals and our customers and are disappointed this led to an
arrest. We take these matters seriously and clearly have more work to do when it comes to
how we handle incidents in our stores. We are reviewing our policies and will continue to
engage with the community and the police department to try to ensure these types of
situations never happen in any of our stores.”

Johnson then announced that every company-owned Starbucks location in the nation would
close on May 29, 2018, for “racial-bias education.” When one customer complained on
Facebook that closing the stores because of just one incident seemed overkill, Starbucks
responded: “There are countless examples of implicit bias resulting in discrimination against
people of color, both in and outside our stores. Addressing bias is crucial in ensuring that all
our customers feel safe and welcome in our stores.” A similar complaint about closing
thousands of stores because of the actions of a handful of employees prompted this
response from Starbucks: “Our goal is to make our stores a safe and welcoming place for
everyone, and we have failed. This training is crucial in making sure we meet our goal.”

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think the manager of the Starbucks in Philadelphia thought of herself as racist?

Answer:

Yes because Robinson had been a customer at the store for almost a decade and they
should know Robinson that much.

2. Do you think that what happened to Nelson and Robinson would have happened had
they been white?

Answer:

There is a minimal chance to happen to white people.

3. What stereotypes were invoked in this case and by whom?

Answer:

The stereotypes invoked in this case were that of black men as criminals and as not
belonging in certain spaces, such as Starbucks.

4. How did stereotyping influence and/or frame the situation for the manager? For the
police? For bystanders?

Answer:

Stereotyping likely influenced and framed the situation for the manager by leading her to
assume that the men were not legitimate customers and were potentially causing trouble.
For the police, stereotyping likely led them to view the men as criminals and to act quickly to
remove them from the premises. For bystanders, stereotyping may have influenced their
perceptions of the situation and their reactions to it.

5. What is your opinion about Starbucks’ response to the arrest of Nelson and Robinson?

Answer:

Starbucks' response to the arrest of Nelson and Robinson is generally seen as appropriate
and proactive. The company apologized for the incident, acknowledged its responsibility for
it, and took steps to address it through training and policy changes.

6. Will Starbucks’ training session on implicit bias have a beneficial impact?

Answer:
It is possible that Starbucks' training session on implicit bias could have a beneficial impact,
but it is important to note that such training alone is not a comprehensive solution to
addressing systemic issues of bias and discrimination.