Record: 1 Title: Code of ethics. Source: Quill. Nov/Dec93, Vol. 81 Issue 9, p37. 1p. Document Type: Article Subject Terms: *Journalists -- Societies, etc. *Journalistic ethics NAICS/Industry Codes: 711513 Independent writers and authors 711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers 711512 Independent actors, comedians and performers Abstract: Presents the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. Responsibility; Freedom of the press; Ethics; Accuracy and objectivity; Fair play; Mutual trust. Full Text Word Count: 824 ISSN: 0033-6475 Accession Number: 9402234588 Database: Communication & Mass Media Complete Society of Professional Journalists CODE OF ETHICS SOCIETY of Professional Journalists, believes the duty of journalists is to serve the truth. We BELIEVE the agencies of mass communication are carriers of public discussion and information, acting on their Constitutional mandate and freedom to learn and report the facts. We BELIEVE in public enlightenment as the forerunner of justice, and in our Constitutional role to seek the truth as part of the public's right to know the truth. We BELIEVE those responsibilities carry obligations that require journalists to perform with intelligence, objectivity, accuracy, and fairness. To these ends, we declare acceptance of the standards of practice here set forth: I. RESPONSIBILITY: The public's right to know of events of public importance and interest is the overriding mission of the mass media. The purpose of distributing news and enlightened opinion is to serve the general welfare. Journalists who use their professional status as representatives of the public for selfish or other unworthy motives violate a high trust. II. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Freedom of the press is to be guarded as an inalienable right of people in a free society. It carries with it the freedom and the responsibility to discuss, question, and challenge actions and utterances of our government and of our public and private institutions. Journalists uphold the right to speak unpopular opinions and the privilege to agree with the majority. III. ETHICS: Journalists must be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know the truth. 1. Gifts, favors, free travel, special treatment or privileges can compromise the integrity of journalists and their employers. Nothing of value should be accepted. 2. Secondary employment, political involvement, holding public office, and service in community organizations should be avoided if it compromises the integrity of journalists and their employers. Journalists and their employers should conduct their personal lives in a manner that protects them from conflict of interest, real or apparent. Their responsibilities to the public are paramount. That is the nature of their profession. 3. So-called news communications from private sources should not be published or broadcast without substantiation of their claims to news values. 4. Journalists will seek news that serves the public interest, despite the obstacles. They will make constant efforts to assure that the public's business is conducted in public and that public records are open to public inspection. 5. Journalists acknowledge the newsman's ethic of protecting confidential sources of information. 6. Plagiarism is dishonest and unacceptable. IV. ACCURACY AND OBJECTIVITY: Good faith with the public is the foundation of all worthy journalism. 1. Truth is our ultimate goal. 2. Objectivity in reporting the news is another goal that serves as the mark of an experienced professional. It is a standard of performance toward which we strive. We honor those who achieve it. 3. There is no excuse for inaccuracies or lack of thoroughness. 4. Newspaper headlines should be fully warranted by the contents of the articles they accompany. Photographs and telecasts should give an accurate picture of an event and not highlight an incident out of context. 5. Sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion. News reports should be free of opinion or bias and represent all sides of an issue. 6. Partisanship in editorial comment that knowingly departs from the truth violates the spirit of American journalism 7. Journalists recognize their responsibility for offering informed analysis, comment, and editorial opinion on public events and issues. They accept the obligation to present such material by individuals whose competence, experience, and judgment qualify them for it. 8. Special articles or presentations devoted to advocacy or the writer's own conclusions and interpretations should be labeled as such. V. FAIR PLAY: Journalists at all times will show respect for the dignity, privacy, rights, and well-being of people encountered in the course of gathering and presenting the news. 1. The news media should not communicate unofficial charges affecting reputation or moral character without giving the accused a chance to reply. 2. The news media must guard against invading a person's right to privacy. 3. The media should not pander to morbid curiosity about details of vice and crime. 4. It is the duty of news media to make prompt and complete correction of their errors. 5. Journalists should be accountable to the public for their reports and the public should be encouraged to voice its grievances against the media. Open dialogue with our readers, viewers, and listeners should be fostered. VI. MUTUAL TRUST: Adherence to this code is intended to preserve and strengthen the bond of mutual trust and respect between American journalists and the American people. The Society shall--by programs of education and other means--encourage individual journalists to adhere to these tenets, and shall encourage journalistic publications and broadcasters to recognize their responsibility to frame codes of ethics in concert with their employees to serve as guidelines in furthering these goals. CODE OF ETHICS (Adopted 1926; revised 1973,1984,1987) Copyright of Quill is the property of Society of Professional Journalists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Tittle, Peg. Ethical issues in business: Inquiries, cases and readings. © Broadview Press, 2000. 549 p. (pp.86-87.) 86 SECTION Ill ETHICAL ISSUES IN BUSINESS Case Study - Dr. Olivieri vs. Apotex Dr. Nancy Olivieri is a medical researcher with the University of Toronto and head of a blood disorder research program at the Hospital for Sick Children. In April 1993, she signed a contract with Apotex Research Inc., a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct a study of the effects of a new drug, deferiprone, which treats a deadly blood disorder, thalassemia. In September 1995, she and an expert in iron metabolism discovered dangerously high levels of iron in some of the liver biopsies taken from her patients who were on the drug; heart disease and early death could result from such a condition. She contacted Apotex, hoping to put an end to the study. Apotex, however, maintained that the drug was safe, claiming that other researchers disagreed with her conclusions; they wanted her to continue the study. They also re~ded Olivieri of the confidentiality agreement she had signed and threatened to sue her if she made her opinions public. Olivieri then contacted the hospital's Research Ethics Board: they told her to change the consent forms so that patients would be informed of the risk; they also told her to report her discovery to the Health Protection Branch in Ottawa, which is responsible for granting drug approvals. She did both. In May 1996, Apotex terminated the trials at the Hospital for Sick Children and removed Olivieri as lead investigator on the international study she was also conducting for them. The executive of the Hospital for Sick Children did not support Olivieri in her dispute with Apotex. Publicly, they maintained that it was a scientific controversy which was best settled Within the scientific community. (In August 1998, the New England journal of Medicine published Olivieri's article, which concluded that deferiprone was ineffective and may be toxic to the liver.) Privately, in e-mail messages sent to many scientists across Canada, the hospital executive stated that "both Apotex and other scientists involved in the [deferiprone] trials disagreed with Olivieri's interpretation of the data." Olivieri and her supporters within the medical and university community felt betrayed by a prominent public institution they viewed as having "sold out" to commercial interests. The comments of Dr. Allan Detsky, Physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, go to the heart of the ethical issue in the case, at least from one perspective. He stated, "Forget about the confidentiality agreement, forget about the hospital's financial interests [in drug company research funding], forget about the pharmaceutical companies' interest. What was the right thing to do in the case? How could somebody whose motivation is to protect children from harm ever be wrong?" In early January 1999, reportedly for personnel issues that happened before the Apotex study, Olivieri was demoted by the hospital: though retaining hospital privileges, she was no longer head of the blood research program and could not conduct any clinical trials. However, just a few weeks later, in late January, University of Toronto President Rob Prichard gathered all the parties together and managed to broker This copy is made solely for the use by a student, staff member or faculty member at Wilfrid Laurier University for research, private study, review, criticism, news reporting, education, parody or satire. Any other use may be an infringement of copyright if done without securing the permission of the copyright owner. WHISTLEBLOWING a deal that reinstated Olivieri as head of the program and cleared her reputation. As well, the University of Toronto resolved to develop for its teaching hospitals "a seamless policy environment reflecting our commitment to academic freedom and ethical research." Questions: 1. We aren't told if there is an existing treatment for thalassemia. Is this information relevant to the moral rightness of Olivieri's decision/action? 2. Do you agree with Detsky - can somebody whose motivation is to protect children from harm ever be wrong? . 3. H you were the ethics consultant hired by the University of Toronto, what specific recommendations would you make for the policies they intend to develop? REFERENCES Boyle, Theresa, and Rita Daly. "Olivieri Pledges to Battle 'Bias'." The Toronto Star 11 Dec. 1998: AI+. Foss, Krista, and Paul Taylor. "Sick Kids demotes controversial MD." The Globe and Mai/8 Jan. 1999: Al2. O'Hara, Jane. "Whistleblower." Maclean's 16 Nov. 1998: 65-69. Quinn, Jennifer and Tanya Talaga. "Blood Research, Hospital Agree to End 2 1/2-year Battle." The Toronto Star27 Jan. 1999: A1+. 87 Shaw, William H. & Barry, Vincent. Professions. Moral issues in business. 4th ed. Wadsworth Pub. Co. (Ch.11. pp.480-485.) THE PROFESSIONS .....___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ One day in January 1985 Eugene Barnes, a San Leandro, California man, suffered a serious head injury. His case might have been routine, the treatment ofhis wound rapid, and his name forgotten-had it not been for one thing: Barnes was uninsured. He was transferred from one hospital to another in a sevenhour search to find a neurosurgeon willing to operate on him. By the time he did receive treatment, it was too late. Eugene Barnes died. . In recent years a number of people have died as the result of "patient dumping" by hospitals and physicians who refuse to treat patients without insurance. In Contra County, California, for example, one pregnant woman. was leftsitting in the waiting room of a private hospital for three 'hours before an ambulance took her to a county hospital, which was willing to care for her. Her baby was stillborn. Such cases have led California to pass a tough, new law that imposes fines of up to $25,000 on physicians and hospitals who refuse to treat the uninsured. 1 Only a few states have acted as vigorously and effectively as California. But regardless of what the law says about it, "patient dumping" raises important moral questions for those who practice medicine. In particular, what moral responsibilities do physicians have to treat those who need medical assistance but cannot afford it? Do they have a professional duty to use their skill and knowledge to aid whoever needs it? Or are they obligated only to those whom they have accepted as clients? Should we view physicians simply as ordinary business people, as medical entrepreneurs? Questions like these cannot be answered without looking at what it means to be a doc- ___j tor-that is, at the nature of the medical profession and at the responsibilities individuals assume by entering that profession. The. fact that the California Medical Association opposed the California antidumping law, and had defeated a similar bill the year before, raises even more sharply this issue of how a profession understands its goals and its role in society. The association's opp
Purchase answer to see full attachment