Ethical Violations Paper

Ethical Violations Paper

Whitney Cervantez

CJS 211

Janet Evans

Understanding ethics means to understand how someone can be unethical. The interaction between ethics and the criminal justice system approach is to be unbiased and impartial. Of the branches of philosophy ethics is the branch that is concerned with judgement, studying what’s right or wrong. Ethics trails into aesthetics, which is the study of beauty. Companies such as Johnson and Johnson who market toward family and skincare hold their promise to society to provide a safe product. Beauty products do not have to be FDA approved, however ethically as a company they have a moral reason to do right by society. The numbers of people who use Johnson and Johnson baby powder is in the millions. However, the recent Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder Lawsuit was told to pay $4.7 billion for causing ovarian cancer. Using the Johnson and Johnson Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit I will explain how the Johnson and Johnson Lawsuit is a recent example of a civil lawsuit. Second, I will explain how the criminal justice agencies use time wisely when involved with the NEWS and during press releases. Elaborating into how cooperation between law enforcement and the medias are not easy but can be accomplished. Third I will provide an article the media used when speaking of the Johnson and Johnson Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit. Fourth, I will mention etiquettes using radio etiquette and their role to broadcast ethically, not violating the direction of the broadcast to the masses. Lastly end with discussing if there are obvious ways the ethical violation(s) could have been avoided.

Using the Johnson and Johnson Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit I will explain how the Johnson and Johnson Lawsuit is a recent example of a civil lawsuit. According to USA Today (2018) “ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis jury on Thursday awarded nearly $4.7 billion in total damages to 22 women and their families after they claimed asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talcum powder contributed to their ovarian cancer in the first case against the company that focused on asbestos in the powder.” (para. 1) The lawsuits women made were civil law suits and the difference between a civil and criminal lawsuit are:

Civil Justice and Basic Fairness is one component of social justice and fairness in relationships between citizens, government agencies, and businesses in private matters. Criminal Justice and Basic Fairness are aspects of social justice concerning violations of the criminal law.

A way that an agency involved in criminal justice that works with Johnson and Johnson would be the security staff at Johnson and Johnson sites who keep the grounds, Johnson and Johnson staff and guests safe. WEIXEL (2018), “Reuters examined documents, trial depositions and trial testimony that reportedly shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, J&J executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers knew that the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos.” (para. 2). Many people were upset that Johnson and Johnson was avoiding all the warnings that were medically unethical, people understood this and with their further research, medical opinions from their DR.’s they fought back. Nothing had been reported about a protest, violent happenings from angry consumers. Regardless, anger can lead to temptation which could lead to irrational justice and security is to maintain a safe and secure balance for the staff of Johnson and Johnson especially during major press releases, news and media broadcasts. During broadcasts and, press releases journalists may want to get a story from the source, filming of any kind isn’t just monitored but must be rearranged in a timely but accurate manor.

The media works with the Criminal Justice system when reporting information, they’ve gathered. Society expects unbiased news and no exaggerations, the article for Johnson and Johnson Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit on the NY TIMES website was conducted in an manner that didn’t strike fear into people who may have read. HSU on Mark Lanier, a lawyer for the women. (2018), “There were people crying, people hugging,” he added. “It’s been quite an emotional scene.”

Mr. Lanier said Johnson & Johnson had spent 40 years covering up evidence of asbestos in some of its talcum-based products and should mark those products with warning labels or focus on powders made with cornstarch.” (para. 6 & 7). Stating that the victims were crying is not exaggerating, but if the article was to add how unjust the Johnson and Johnson Company was and how they should feel terrible is subjective. This quote doesn’t have a persuasive or subjective tone to the facts. Mr. Lanier did mention how Johnson and Johnson should mark their products with warning labels, this is a fair idea and take it shows medical ethics.

When news is broadcast on the radio there is an etiquette that must always be upheld. LEVIN AND SILVERSTEIN (2018) “The six-week trial bundled together 22 ovarian cancer claims, five involving women from Missouri and 17 from various other states. Several of the women are deceased, and family members carried on their lawsuits. All contended that asbestos exposure from longtime use of Johnson’s Baby Powder or another talc product, Shower to Shower, had caused or contributed to the illnesses. Each claim won compensatory damages of $25 million, for a total of $550 million. Then the jury came back later in the afternoon with a punitive damages award of $4.14 billion, and Johnson & Johnson quickly vowed to file an appeal.” (para. 3). Radio etiquette is an ethical approach meaning to keep communications short and simple, while also being descriptive enough for the listeners and receivers to fully understand. News and messages should only provide essential information should that is communicated. This kind announcement is to provide news to the listener, not get the listener to get frantic, get them to join a particular parties side.

The obvious ways the ethical violation(s) could have been avoided if Johnson and Johnson did listen to the medical evidence that talcum powder has led to cancer, asbestos and tragedy was to stop using talcum powder because that is the ethical thing to do. Johnson and Johnson as a business makes their profit from everyone who uses the products dollar, the money marketing puts in to attract buyers should also be ethical and mindful, to present their products with facts not polished up statements that are borderline fabricated. Out of sight out of mind is what most advertising does, the mention of talcum powder leading to ovarian cancer I see as a hard pitch to sale but if companies can’t pitch their product in confidence then the masses will see through a fake approach. Ethical violations don’t just begin when a security guard gets frantic and tases a protester, if a radio message comes across alarming, when articles take on a persuasive and or subjective tone. Depending on the situation a messy situation can be handled carefully wherever it begins, grows and ends.

Resources

USA Today. (2018). Nearly $4.7 billion awarded in Johnson & Johnson baby powder lawsuit. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/legal/2018/07/12/nearly-4-7-billion-awarded-j-j-baby-powder-lawsuit/781525002/

WEIXEL, N. (2018). Report: Johnson & Johnson knew about asbestos in baby powder for decades. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/421395-report-johnson-johnson-knew-about-asbestos-in-baby-powder-for-decades

HSU, T. (2018). Johnson & Johnson Told to Pay $4.7 Billion in Baby Powder Lawsuit. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/business/johnson-johnson-talcum-powder.html

LEVIN AND SILVERSTEIN, M. A. S. (2018). Johnson & Johnson hit with $4.69 billion loss in baby powder-ovarian cancer case. Retrieved from http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/johnson-johnson-hit-469-billion-loss-baby-powder-ovarian-cancer-case#stream/0