Goodloe Sutton, the editor of Alabama Newspaper, calls for the Ku Klux Klan (14th February 2019)

The Case Controversy

On February 14th 2019, Goodloe Sutton, the editor and owner of the newspaper Democrat-Reporter wrote : "Time for the Ku Klux Klan to night ride again" to call on the racist Community to resurface in the United States. The journalist justifies his comments by saying that he is against raising taxes in Alabama. He wants the KKK to "clean up" in Washington D.C. to eliminate Democrats who want to raise taxes. According to Goodloe Sutton, Democrats are plotting for raising taxes, fees and duties in Alabama and the Ku Klux Klan would be a good organization to counter these decisions. 

He describes these politicians as social-communist and defends his ideas with violent words, trivializing violence and racism. Indeed, the writer minimizes the crimes of the racist organization by talking about a limited number of people killed and the fact that the clan only acted when the situation was legitimate. For the publisher, his comments are not inappropriate, since he believes that Democrats are dangerous for the United States and that they will transform the country into a communist state. Goodloe Sutton calls for the hanging of democrats and the lynching of groups which have communist ideas. 

As a result of this article, many politicians, readers and people in the world of journalism, stop subscribing to the newspaper. The University of Southern Mississippi's School of Communication removed Goodloe Sutton, who was one of their students, from its Mass Communication and Journalism Hall of Fame because of his recent racist remarks. Moreover, the representatives of the University of Southern Mississippi's School of Communication said : "We strongly condemn Mr. Sutton's remarks as they are antithetical to all that we value as scholars of journalism, the media, and human communication." Goodloe Sutton also lost his distinguished community journalism award, from Auburn University, that he had received in 2009. This controversy led to the editor's dismissal. Irony of fate: the editor's subsitute is an African-American woman : Elecia R. Dexter, a professional in management, human resources and politics.

The Stakeholders

This scandal affects many people who are considered as the stakeholders of this controversy : Goodloe Sutton since he is the one most affected by the consequences of his article, everyone working for the newspaper because this controversy affects the reputation, growth and profit of The Democrat-Reporter, the newspaper readers because this scandal upsets their confidence and their view of their usual magazine, Democratic politicians who are attacked for defamation and the victims of the Ku Klux Klan who were hurt by the innapropriate comments. 

The Theories

An individualist won't approve this scandal because the newspaper lost its reputation, customers, Awards, honors and Goodloe Sutton lost his job, which does not maximize the profit of the business. Moreover, Goodloe Sutton's words incited hatred, violence and riots and his article is a defamation of democratic politicians. For all these reasons, we can say that Goodloe Sutton did not act in accordance with the law. Individualism considers this case as unethical. 

According to Utilitarianism, Goodloe Sutton didn't act in an ethical way. First, the publisher has lost, as a result of his article, his awards, his popularity with readers and his work for the newspaper.  Secondly, the company's reputation and image have been damaged by these racist and violent statements and the credibility of other writers has been disrupted, which doesn't maximize employees' happiness. Thirdly, the Democrats who suffered from defamation are affected by this article because they are described as social-communist and dangerous to society. Finally, those affected by the Ku Klux Klan are wounded by this article, which recalls a racist, xenophobic, violent and even murderous era in which they were victims. 

Kantianism also qualified this article as unethical because the reporter didn't treat people in a humane and respectful way. Democratic politicians received defamatory comments because the publisher spoke of them as socially dangerous social communists. The former victims of the Ku Klux Klan had a look back at a difficult time for some communities. The clan's crimes were violent, racist, anti-Semitic and murderous, and had physical but also psychological consequences for its victims. The people working for the magazine were hit by this event because the business lost a lot of audience, money and its solid reputation. 

Virtue theory requires four important qualities and Goodloe Sutton only filled one, which shows that his behavior was unethical. First, Goodloe Sutton's courage is high since the publisher is taking risks to take a stand for his ideas and actions. However, Sutton’s ideas are not considered as right because the writer stands for racism and violence. Secondly, Goodloe Sutton assumes his extreme and racist point of view and is perfectly honest about his way of thinking with his readers. However, concerning the temperance, Goodloe Sutton, through his article, did not demonstrate reasonable expectations and desires because he was influenced by his vices. Finally, the fourth quality is not represented by Goodloe Sutton's article. Indeed, the publisher did not demonstrate justice through his words because his ideas were neither good nor fair.

Justificatied Ethics Evaluation 

In my opinion, the journalist did not act correctly in writing this article. By imposing his extreme and racist views, he shocked many people. Freedom of expression is certainly part of the United States' First Amendment, but Sutton's comments went beyond the limits. The publisher has made comments that are racist, extreme, inappropriate, violent and defamatory, which is against the law. That's why, I think less power and importance should be given to the editor in order to avoid such mistakes. The other journalists are all responsible for the content of the article since they all represent the magazine. They could have checked the editor's comments given his previous racist and borderline references.   

My Action Plan

In the short term, I think it is important that the company aologizes for Goodloe Sutton's publication. Through a news release, other journalists can clear themselves of Sutton's comments, which were not approved by the rest of the team. By apologizing, the magazine can regain the confidence of its readers by showing its willingness to improve. Acknowledging its wrongs is a good way for The Democrat Reporter to move forward Following the controversy and to mark this event as a turning point in the history of business. This controversy has made very bad publicity for the newspaper, regaining the confidence of readers will be difficult but not impossible given that this is the first major scandal since the creation of the newspaper. 

In order to avoid this kind of incident, I think it is important to establish a better communication strategy between all employees, on the long run. Of course, each journalist has his own article, but it is important that his colleagues can read it and correct it before it is published. This will allow each journalist to have criticism from an external point of view and thus improve his article. The magazine could then establish a rule such as a ban on publication if the article has not been checked and validated by at least 3 other journalists and reporters. This new policy requires good communication and open-mindedness within the team, which will improve collaboration.

- Marie Berthier

References

The New York Times : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/democrat-reporter-elecia-dexter.html, by Sarah Mervosh (Feb. 23, 2019)

ABC News : https://www.abc15.com/news/national/alabama-newspaper-editor-who-urged-klan-to-ride-again-replaced-by-african-american-woman, by CNN Newsource (Feb. 23, 2019) 

The Washington Post : https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/19/time-ku-klux-klan-night-ride-again-an-alabama-newspaper-editor-wants-bring-back-lynching/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e458d097d1db, by Antonia Noori Farzan (Feb. 19, 2019) 

The Hill :  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/430504-alabama-newspaper-editor-calls-for-return-of-the-kkk-to-clean, by Owen Daugherty (Feb. 18, 2019) 

Time : http://time.com/5533144/alabama-newspaper-ku-klux-klan-resurgence/, by Associated Press (Feb. 20, 2019) 

            

23andMe Sharing Customer's Data With Other Companies? (2015, 2017, 2018)

The Case

23andMe is a company where anybody curious about their genes can go online and order a kit to get results. Without the traditional doctor’s office visit. People join because they are interested how much Italian is still in their blood, or why they sneeze when they look directly at the light. On a more serious note, by purchasing a different kit, a person can discover possibilities of contracting certain illnesses or diseases, all discovered through their genes.  This can be done as easily as ordering a kit for $99 or $199, depending on what kind of results you are interested to get out of it,then adding a sample of one's saliva into a test tube to mail back to the company. 

23andMe is under a lot of scrutiny since recent partnerships were made with outside medical companies.  As 23andMe has over 5 million customers, that means 5 million people’s genes the company has stored in their database. Once you send in your saliva, the company has your DNA and the information that comes with that forever. 23andMe has been partnering and making deals with outside research companies, essentially selling access to their database which is full of customer’s data. This concerns customers, and they feel their personal information is being exploited while 23andMe is making a profit.

One of the most significant deals 23andMe made, was with the company Glaxio Smith Kline (GSK) in June of 2018. This was a 4 year deal in exchange for a $300 million dollar stake in 23andMe. Glaxio Smith Kline is a pharmaceutical medication, vaccine, and healthcare manufacturer. With this partnership, 23andMe has given access to GSK to use their database for their own pharmaceutical and medical research.

Similarly, another partnership made was with the company Pfizer in January of 2015. Pfizer’s goals are to strengthen the public healthcare system globally, especially in underprivileged parts of the world. Pfizer also was given access to see 23andMe’s data in hopes to advance their research.

Lastly, a public deal 23andMe made was with a second pharmaceutical company called Lundbeck in 2017.  Lundbeck focuses all of their efforts into making medications for psychiatric and neurological disorders such as depression and bipolar diseases. These two alone, impact 16 million people in the United States. Lundbeck has also been granted by 23andMe access to their customer’s genetic information.

For each of these companies partnered with 23andMe, the access to this much data is something that these companies would never have had access to.  Haydeh Payami, from the New York State Department of Health admitted, “What 23andMe did in a matter of years, would have taken several decades and tens of millions of dollars if done conventionally.”  This exhibits 23andMe’s motives behind making these deals, but customers are still feeling violated of their privacy. There is an online statement regarding all company required agreements, that every customer must digitally agree to, which at the end includes a check box granting 23andMe permission to use one's information in outside studies. When reading the statement, which arguably most people don’t, the box is already checked off saying you will agree, but you are able to uncheck the box. Inlcuded in this statement is informing csutomers that if at any point if someone feels their data is unsafe, they can easily access their online 23andMe account and “opt out” of the research.

Stakeholders involved in this case include each individual company, 23andMe, including anybody who is affiliated, along with customers, interested customers, or the people hoping for advances in medicine to be made through the research made possible by 23andMe.

As there are two sides to every story, there is discussion as to whether what 23andMe is doing is ethical or not. Customers feel violated, and 23andMe feels they are benefiting the world of heath.  Customer’s permission seems to be deceiving, but it is accessible to everybody.  Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and the Virtue Theory will analyze whether 23andMe is acting "right" or "wrong".

Individualism

Based on individualistic beliefs, an individualist simply focus on the individual, and in some cases the company can be that individual. It is important that whatever matters to the company, matters to only them and the owners of the company. It is essential to maximize profits, and make sure those profits go directly back to the company. 23andMe charges a significant amount for their kit, and is making deals with other companies in exchange for money. They are surely profiting as shown in the deal made with GSK for $300 million, especially as they become more popular. They profit as a company every time they partner with companies. An individualist would consider these actions as indeed focusing on themselves while making money, therefore acting ethical within individualistic terms.

Utilitarianism

From a Utilitarian perspective, 23andMe is responsible for causing different stakeholders’ happiness and unhappiness. A Utilitarian is concerned with happiness, and keeping everybody happy both in and out of the company.  The reason for 23andMe’s partnerships are for the greater good of the medical industry.  They know they have more genetic data that any of these companies possibly can ever get their hands on, and they’re using it to improve research. This is being done to create medicines and solutions to heal people with thousands of diseases…making people happy. 23andMe is also happy, as they are following their mission statement which mentions people having the chance to “benefit from human genome.” Companies who work with 23andMe are happy as their research abilities are being accelerated. Negatively, is how customers feel. They feel deceived when they hear about 23andMe’s deals. The data they trusted the company with is being what seems like handed out. Overall, the pros outweigh the cons according to the utilitarian stance on the topic, making one agree that what 23andMe is doing is ethical. Utilitarians would only then recommend that something would be done about how customers are upset.

Kantianism

According to a Kantian, 23andMe’s actions would be deemed ethical. To a Kantian, there are basic principles which start with rationality. Every decision should be treated rationally, and making sure others make rational decisions as well. After that, essentially respecting each other and being motivated by Good Will are the values Kantians follow.  Considering the actions of 23andMe, everything they do is rational. They have an entire honest privacy statement on their website for any concerned customer who takes the time to look. Their decisions are to work with legitimate medical companies with all intentions to make a difference.  Nothing done by 23andMe has been irrational. They openly respect customers as they can opt out of the studies at any time. Most importantly, they act upon Good Will. They have their separate and unrelated business, but chose to enlist their data into something bigger to make a bigger difference.  Using the Formula of Humanity, 23andMe must act in a way that they treat humanity for yourself or others at anytime; and they do that. Yes, they do benefit financially out of collaborating, but its to benefit all ends of the spectrum.

Virtue Theory

Viewing this case from the Virtue Theory perspective, the collaborations being made are certainly ethical. The Virtue Theory focuses on the four main virtues: courage, honesty, temperance/self control, and justice/fairness.  By analyzing courage first, 23andMe is in fact showing courage as they are taking a stand for what they believe in as listed in their Mission Statement, to benefit from human genome.  With these partnerships, “benefits” are being made possible. In terms of honesty, attempts are made to inform customers about partnerships and that their genes are being used in the study. For temperance or self control, 23andMe is showing significant amounts of it. With the major database that they own, they are being offered millions of dollars by so many companies in exchange for access to their database. Government wants their data as well, and they decline these offers and keep their collaborations to a minimum that they believe in the most. Lastly, justice and fairness. Customers are given the option to opt out whenever they feel their information is being exploited. With a simple google source, every person has access to know this. The CEO of 23andMe, Anne Wojcicki even sent a letter out to all customers at the beginning of the GSK partnership reminding anybody who wants that they can opt out. People choosing not to read is not at the fault of the company.

Action Plan

This is a controversy that is creating bad publicity for a company which is, according to all four above ethical theories, deemed as ethical.  Looking ahead for the organization, steps can be made to create a more positive image for the company, while ensuring the comfort in existing and future customers in trusting 23andMe with their genetic data.

To start, 23andMe needs to increase their methods of honesty. Beginning by giving a statement with more information to everybody about their current and future inputs into research. A lot of the upset customers don’t get the opportunity to be upset about where their information is going, they’re too upset that they did not know that their information was ever leaving. 23andMe needs to make a statement to all the confused customers describing the safe companies which have access to the database, and what their intentions are. The next step, similarly, is to be sure that every new customer is aware of their options before they even take that first step in spitting in the test-tube. It is important that not only they know, but it is marketed in an exciting way. Many people would be happy to support the research 23andMe is collaborating with. It just needs to be expressed in an exciting way, telling them that this is an opportunity to help society by including oneself into the studies, as it can be in the long run.  In order to ensure a new customer is aware, 23andMe needs to not hide the permission box at the end of a long agreement form. Implementing a physical paper flyer into the kit so that this form must be seen during a customers most interested point, while receiving the kit. This can be a perfect way to get that information across.

With this new marketing plan, the Mission Statement needs some tweaking. Currently it states, “To help people access, understand and benefit from the human genome.”  To include the excitement and opportunity piece about enrolling that data into medical research, not only is more honest, but it could entice people more!

Allyson Neu

References

Baudhion, Linnea M. (2014). The FDA and 23andMe: Violating the First Amendment or Protecting the Rights of     Consumers? Retreived on March 2, 2019 from http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/60/6/835.abstract

Oberhays, Daniel. (July 2018). 23andMe Sold Access to Your DNA Library to Big Pharma, But You Can Opt Out: 23andMe     Customers can opt out of the program, but that misses the point.  Retrieved on March 2, 2019 from             https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xwkaz3/23andme-sold-access-to-your-dna-library-to-big-     pharma-but-you-can-opt-out

Ducharme, Jamie. (July 2018). A Major Drug Company Now Has Access to 23andMe’s Genetic Data. Should You Be             Concerned? Retrieved on March 2, 2019 from http://time.com/5349896/23andme-glaxo-smith-kline/

23andMe. (July 2018). Privacy Highlights: Full Privacy Statement. Retrieved on March 4, 2019 from   https://www.23andme.com/about/privacy/

Wojcicki, Anne (July 2018). A Note On 23andMe’s New Collaboration with GSK. 23andMe Blog. Retrieved March 6, 2019,  from https://blog.23andme.com/news/a-note-on-23andmes-new-collaboration-with-gsk/

23andMe (August 2017). 23andMe Now Enrolling For A New Genetic Study on Depression and Bipolar Disorder. 23andMe Blog. Retrieved March 25, 2019 from https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/23andme-launches-new-genetic-study-depression-bipolar-disorder/

23andMe Announces Collaboration with Pfizer Inc. to Conduct Genetic Research Through 23andMe’s Research Platform (January 2015). 23andMe. Retrieved March 8, 2019 from https://mediacenter.23andme.com/press-releases/23andme-pfizer-research-platform/

Bloomberg. (July 2018). Glaxosmithkline Is Acquiring A $300 Million Stake In Genetic Testing Company 23andme.   Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from http://fortune.com/2018/07/25/glaxosmithkline-23andme-gsk/

GlaxoSmithKline Plc. (July 2018). You, Me And 23andme: Discovering New Medicines Through Genetics. Retrieved March 4, 2018 from https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/behind-the-science/innovation/you-me-and-23andme-discovering-        new-medicines-through-genetics/

Dr. Salazar, Heather. (2019). Business Ethics and Virtue. PowerPoint Presentation.

Dr. Salazar, Heather. (2019). Utilitarianism and Business Ethics. PowerPoint Presentation.

Dr. Salazar, Heather. (2019). Kantian Business Ethics. PowerPoint Presentation.

Dr. Salazar, Heather. (2019). Does Business Ethics Make Economic Sense? & The Ethical Theory of Individualism. PowerPoint Presentation.

Lufthansa sues passenger for skipping flight (February 2019)

Skiplagging: Savvy Flyers Only

Many people everyday go on flights to get to an intended destination. For some people, flying can be a very common thing that is implemented into their lives and careers that they will try to do whatever they can to save money. For some sneaky flyers, a loophole has been created that can help them find the cheapest airfare tickets available, and that is what Lufthansa Airlines, a German airline is currently suing an unnamed passenger for using a loophole technique known as Skiplagging.

Skiplagging is defined as “a money-saving method where passengers leave their flight at a layover instead of the final destination”(Morris). The unnamed passenger had purchased a ticket from Lufthansa and was supposed to fly to Oslo from Seattle via Frankfurt in April of 2016, but when he got to Frankfurt, he skipped the connecting flight to Oslo and went to Berlin on a separate ticket. By doing this, he saved money of about 657 euros, which is the American equivalent of $743. By using this technique, the unnamed passenger saved money with the price of the two tickets he purchased then purchasing a nonstop flight from Seattle to Berlin, which was his intended destination all along.

This isn't the first time that this technique has been brought to the courts. in 2015, creator of Skiplagged.com Aktarer Zaman was sued by United Airlines for using the skiplagging technique.In an article for CNN.com, it states “In February, Orbitz backed out of the case and settled with Zaman, but United kept pursuing it. In May, a judge in Chicago dismissed the case because Skiplagged wasn't in his jurisdiction. United didn't pursue further legal action”(Gillespie). As for outside people looking into this case, many people don't see anything wrong with flyers using the skiplagging technique. In a article for BBC.com, it states “So, are passengers gaming a system stacked against them? After all, the airline offered the seat at a given price and received that price. The New York Times’ Ethicist column saw no problem with skiplagging. Commenters agreed, with one concluding making a purchase does not oblige you to use it”(Creedy).

Although the case was thrown away for Lufthansa not giving full information as to why they were charging the unnamed passenger with the amount of money that his ticket had cost plus interest, Lufthansa is attempting to appeal the case and the reason why could be very sneaky on their behalf. An article by Centreforaviation.com states that the new management for Oslo Gardermoen airport has made it its goal to bring in more tourists to the area from Asia, as well as North America. It states “Despite the goals for Asian growth, the larger expansion opportunity for Oslo is in the North American market. While Oslo would like to see North American carriers enter Oslo, Norwegian Air Shuttle growth has been large, and provoked a growth response from SAS”(centreforaviation.com). This statement on the website shows that Oslo airport’s new management has a goal to bring in more of a North American market to their airport, bringing in more tourism for their city. If Lufthansa were to have a partnership with the airport and were to have some sort of financial agreement that they receive money from them for bringing in more North American tourism, then this could explain why Lufthansa is still pursuing this case due to Oslo not paying them because they did not successfully bring the passenger who skipped the second leg of his flight.In an article for DailyMail.com, it states “According to German court documents, the case was thrown out because the airline failed to fully explain how it had arrived at the compensation figure of €2,112 (£1,852)”(Ibbetson). Failing to explain how they had arrived at the compensation figure that they were suing the man for could prove that Lufthansa was attempting to receive money that they had lost from Oslo due to the passenger not flying into their airport, which loses tourism for the city.

Although many different people use Skiplagged.com and take the risk of facing these issues every time they use the loophole website, the main stakeholders that affected in this case are Lufthansa Airlines, and the unnamed passenger that is being sued. These stakeholders are affected by different aspects of the case, and the following four ethical theories of Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Individualism brings an interesting look into this case and how the ethical theory is applied to the stakeholders. Individualism is defined as everyone being able to pursue their own interests, but no one has the right to make their choices for other people. This is a very interesting way to look at how Lufthansa should be looking at the case, because they should not be upset and angry that their passengers are utilizing the skiplagging technique because they are pursuing their own interests and doing what is best for them, and have the right for no one else to say that anything is wrong with it. This is a very important point to make with the case regarding individualism, because Lufthansa is simply suing the passenger because he violated the terms and conditions that Lufthansa set out, but the passenger has the right to pursue his own interests of skipping the second leg of the flight according to individualism. A second portion of individualism that is very crucial to looking at is Milton Friedman’s view of Individualism and how it plays into Lufthansa Airlines. Friedman believed that the only goal of a business is to profit, so the only obligation that the business has is to maximize their profit and they are attempting to do this by suing the passenger for the amount of the second leg of the flight he skipped plus interest. This is a very crucial point to bring up, because from Friedman’s view of Individualism, Lufthansa is doing nothing wrong by wanting to maximize their profit from the unnamed passenger but then again according to individualism, the unnamed passenger is entitled to make their own choices without anyone else saying it is wrong.

Utilitarianism brings in another strong interpretation of the case, and whether or not both sides of the case are acting ethical. Utilitarianism is viewed as all actions that are done by someone are aiming at something that is good, and that we are seeking things because they make us happy. By completing things in certain ways, this will maximize everyone's happiness with something in the short and long term. For the different stakeholders that are involved, both sides maximized their happiness in different ways. For the passenger, he is maximizing his happiness by using the skiplagging website, without worrying about any repercussions being put against him for using the technique. This is going to maximize the passengers happiness, because he is able to use the skiplagging technique and get off scotch free. As for Lufthansa, their happiness can be maximized within the case if they were to drop their prices on their flights, so then their passengers don't have to use the skiplagging website. Skiplagging is a money saving alternative, and if Lufthansa were to drop the prices on their flights so that passengers wouldn't have to use this alternative, then their happiness would be maximized as well because passengers would be satisfied with the price of their flights and they wouldn't have passengers skipping legs of flights and not being able to fill in those empty seats.

Kantianism examines this case in a different way then the other ethical theories represented, as it focuses on motivations. Kantianism has four major principles that come into play with this ethical theory and those are defined as act rationally, allow and help people to make rational decisions, respect people and their autonomy, and be motivated by goodwill by seeking to do what is right because it is right. As for looking at Lufthansa Airlines from a Kantian perspective, they are not correctly following the formula of humanity that is represented within Kantian ethics. The formula of humanity explains that you are to act in such a way that you treat humanity, always as an end and never simply as a means. For Lufthansa, their motivation for suing the passenger was because they wanted him to pay the money that he owed them for the leg of the flight that he skipped plus interest. This is ethically wrong from a Kantian perspective, because their motivation is to get the money from the passenger because they believed that he wronged them by utilizing the skiplagging technique, not by doing it because it is the right thing to do. By suing the passenger, Lufthansa is attempting to use this as a scare tactic that will worry other people who use the skiplagging technique that if they attempt this with Lufthansa, there will be consequences.

Finally, Virtue Theory digs into the case and whether or not certain characteristics within the stakeholders apply to the virtue theory.Virtue theory is based on Aristotle's ethics which discussed how people need to exercise rationality in order to function and live good lives. Virtues are defined as characteristics that allow things to function properly that are called “good making features” or “virtues”. As for the different types of character that come into play with virtue theory, four different characteristics were named as Courage, Honesty, Temperance/Self Control, and Justice/Fairness. As for the passenger and Lufthansa airlines, each stakeholder can look at these different types of characteristics and apply them to how they have gone across what we know of to be this case. Courage was displayed by the passenger for using the skiplagging technique as he could've been caught by Lufthansa and put on the flight that he didn't intend to be on, ultimately not bringing him to his real destination. Regarding honesty, this case was unethically correct in this sense of virtue theory because the passenger had agreed to taking the full flight when he signed off on the terms and conditions placed by Lufthansa. When it comes to temperance/self control, no sign of either was shown in this case, eliminating it from discussion. Finally, for justice/fairness, it is unfair to other flyers and the airline that the passenger had skipped the second leg of the flight when the airline was holding the seat for him believing that he was going to board when he planned to not take the second leg of the flight all along. Justice is also shown by Lufthansa because they attempted to sue the passenger since he did not comply to the terms and conditions that they set for him. Virtue theory takes an interesting look on this case, and how the different characteristics come into play with different parts of the case.








When it comes to my personal opinion regarding this case, Lufthansa is acting very unethical and is not going in the right direction in appealing this court case. Yes, they are attempting to appeal so that they can show that they are not going to go down easy with this controversy, but due to them not giving the full reason as to why they are charging the passenger the amount they are, that puts them in a bad spot. If Lufthansa were to come out with the reason why they are charging the passenger for the amount their charging him with, there could be a different result in the case, and possibly end in their favor.

For Lufthansa to bounce back from this controversy and reestablish themselves as a major competitor in their field, they need to follow a certain number of steps to get back to being a well known airline, and I have come up with these different steps. First, Lufthansa needs to make sure that their passengers have not bought another ticket that could conflict with the original ticket that they have purchased, that way they can know for sure whether or not that the passenger will be present. Next, Lufthansa needs to drop their prices on their flights so that they can bring in more passengers directly from their own airline and not from other types of ticket buying sites. If Lufthansa were to center themselves around a mission of providing flyers with a very affordable plane ticket while offering a safe and comfortable environment, then this will raise their profit and bring in more customers to Lufthansa and have them known as one of the best airlines to consider flying with.

To add on to the action plan to get Lufthansa Airlines back on their feet, Lufthansa also needs to take part in some re-marketing for their company. If they come out with fresh, new marketing campaigns that label them as a friendly and affordable airline that the everyday person can afford, then word is going to get out about their brand and how they are a loyal airline carrier. Also, Lufthansa can increase their ethical productivity and monitoring of their ethics by retraining their employees on making sure that people are getting on all the legs of their flights. I also believe that bringing in a new security group under Lufthansa's name that will check if all passengers will be boarding all flights involved in their purchase would be very effective. This would increase security for the airline, and they would also have a little more control ensuring that passengers aren't skipping out on their flights and using the skiplagging technique. This plan is also going to bring in more profit for Lufthansa, as lowering prices will appeal to people with a cheaper budget when it comes to purchasing a flight. For Lufthansa to improve their business and bounce back after this controversy, having a strong action plan of dropping airline prices along with making some improvements to their security systems within airports could be a very effective way of getting them back on the right track with people who use their airline.

By: Connor McDowell

References

Capa. “Oslo Gardermoen Airport Seeks Asian Flights to Leverage Tourism to Norway; Perhaps the New Iceland.” CAPA - Centre for Aviation, CAPA - Centre for Aviation, 9 Oct. 2016, centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/oslo-gardermoen-airport-seeks-asian-flights-to-leverage-tourism-to-norway-perhaps-the-new-iceland-305357.

Creedy, Kathryn B. “Capital - Skiplagging: The Travel Trick That Airlines Hate.” BBC News, BBC, 26 Feb. 2019, www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190226-the-travel-trick-that-airlines-hate.

Gillespie, Patrick. “How a 23-Year-Old Beat United Airlines.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, 31 Dec. 2015, 4:01pm, money.cnn.com/2015/12/31/investing/aktarer-zaman-how-i-beat-united-airlines/index.html.

Ibbetson, Ross. “Lawyer for Man Sued by Lufthansa for Not Using Last Leg of Plane Journey Says Client Will WIN Case.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 13 Feb. 2019, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6696041/Lawyer-man-sued-Lufthansa-not-using-leg-plane-journey-says-client-WIN-case.html.

Morris, Chris. “Lufthansa Is Suing a Passenger for Missing a Flight.” Fortune, Fortune, 2019, fortune.com/2019/02/12/lufthansas-suing-skip-lagging-passenger-for-intentionally-missing-flight/.

Sanofi Pasteur: Dengvaxia Controversy (April 2016 - Present)

       In 2015, the Philippine Food and Drug Administration approved the sale and distribution of a drug produced by the French drug company, Sanofi Pasteur. The drug is dengvaxia and it was supposed to help as a cure to the very widespread disease in Latin America and South America known as dengue. Dengue, also known as, “Break Bone Fever” is spread by mosquitoes and affects more than 400 million people worldwide while leaving nearly 500,000 people hospitalized yearly. Approximately 20% of those hospitalized, end up passing away due to the disease yearly. Infection rates in the Philippine’s alone can get as high at 90%. Symptoms of break bone fever can be very excruciating and can range from throwing up, pain behind the eyes, fevers, lingering weakness and joint pain. On the severe end of the spectrum, dengue can cause hemorrhage or shock that can result in death.

Jes Aznar for The New York Times

       Not too long after the first vaccination drive in schools, people started to figure out the dangers of the dengvaxia vaccination. Christine Mae de Guzman was one of the first students to receive the vaccines because she went to school in one of the regions that were given the vaccination drives at school. The vaccination is given in three doses, six months apart. Christine just finished up her second dosage when she started to have a throbbing headache. Days after having the second dosage and the throbbing headache, Christine passed away. Her death was the first event that sparked concern in the Philippine people and the Philippine government of the possible hidden dangers that the dengvaxia vaccine actually holds within. After his daughter’s death, Christine’s father said, “It was for health” when asked if he approved of the vaccination at the time.
       After concerns of the vaccine sparked, that is when Sanofi Pasteur released information about the vaccine that should had been released much sooner. They said that if you were not currently infected with dengue that you should not receive the vaccination because it can cause a worse strain of the infection that may lead to death. The people of the Philippine's began to feel as if they were the guinea pigs of Sanofi Pasteur.

Aaron Favila

The Philippine government stopped all vaccinations immedietly and demanded a refund from Sanofi Pasteur. Sanofi refused because they said they would then be accepting defeat when in fact people over nine that were not already infected, the vaccine was 66% effective in preventing dengue. While, people over nine that were already infected and then given the vaccine, it was 81.9% effective.
       Almost four year after the approval of the vaccine and almost three years after the first vaccination drive, the Philippine government is bringing Sanofi Pasteur to court to hold them accountable for what they hid and did to the country. The government is filing six criminal charges against Sanofi Pasteur officials over the death of fourteen children that were given the dengvaxia vaccine and passed away due to it. The Philippine justice department has found positive grounds that will allow them to hold Sanofi officials liable for, “Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide”.
       There are many stakeholders that are involved in this case. Some for bad reasons and others because Sanofi Pasteur put them in a bad situation. The biggest stakeholder is clearly Sanofi Pasteur because their name is now known as the one who released a vaccination that killed innocent children and kept the risks a secret for almost a year. This will affect their reputation, their trustworthiness and will cause their sales and business to drop for the years to come. Another set of stakeholders are all of the children that were given the vaccination because their lives are literally at stake. They were given a vaccination that could, in fact, take their lives from them because the vaccine could put a worse strain of the infection in their body. The Philippine government is the final stakeholder because they were the ones that bought all of the vaccines and distributed them to the children. They could lose the trust of their citizens due to the fact that they distributed something that could harm people when it’s supposed to help them. Even though the government didn’t know of the risks, citizens may still be hesitant to trust them because they may think it could happen again without the government pushing to really find out all side effects and risks of the drug they are giving out.
       Basic principles of Kantianism state that people should act rationally and to not consider yourself exempt for the rules of law or humanity. Kantianism says that you should allow and help people make rational decisions for themselves and respect other people’s individual needs and differences. The Formula of Humanity states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant, MM 429). Simply put, through The Formula of Humanity, Kant is saying that you should treat people as another person. Do not treat them as an object and do not t treat them as if they are less than you are. Treat people the way you would like to be treated. If you would not do a certain action towards yourself then do not do it towards someone else. A Kantian would say what Sanofi Pasteur did to the Philippine people is clearly unethical. Sanofi distributed a drug for their own sake to make money and see how it would work because they knew it could get passed and distributed to the people affected by Dengue. They knew the possible harm that the vaccine could cause people who received it but did not tell the world for almost a year because they were using the people as test dummies (guinea pigs). By Sanofi not releasing the risks to the public in the beginning, they took the ability away from people for them to make their own rational decisions knowing what the risks are. Title 42 300aa-26 clearly states in section c that every company has to release all risks associated with the vaccine to the people before their vaccination. By taking away the ability to make rational decisions from the Philippine people, Sanofi did not respect people or their individual differences and needs.What Sanofi Pasteur did goes directly against the basic principles of Kantianism and The Formula of Humanity. They treated the Philippine people directly as a means and not as an end. Under the view of a Kantian, what Sanofi Pasteur did, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       The equation for individualism is, Individualism = Egoism (Selfishness) + Rights-based Constraints. This equation in words is saying that everyone has the right to pursue their own interests but they should not pursue them in a way that will hurt other people and that will take the ability away from other people to make decisions for themselves.In business ethics, there are two different types of individualistic views. One of those views is by Milton Friedman. Friedman said that the only goal of a business is to profit and to maximize profit for the owner and the stockholders. Friedman’s individualism does not consider a few things. Those things are; the identity of the company and leaders prior to investors, the motivation f investors to invest in socially responsible businesses and the motivation of customers and employees to choose socially responsible businesses. The other individualistic view is by Tibor Machan. Machan’s individualism says that the only direct goal of business is to profit, and the primary obligation of the businessperson is to maximize profit. Machan also states that the direct goal of profiting may have to be met by pursuing indirect goals first that are not directly aimed at profiting. On top of that, Machan’s individualism acknowledges that sometimes business people may have to prioritize goals other goals for the business over top of the goal to maximize profit. In the case of the dengvaxia controversy, a follower of Friedman’s individualism and Machan’s individualism would disagree with what Sanofi Pasteur did. Even though Sanofi Pasteur did what was in their best interest to maximize profit, they did not do it within the law or for the heath/safety of others. Sanofi released the dengvaxia vaccine because they knew it would make them a lot of money in countries that dengue is a large issue in.

This is because it was the first vaccine approved for use to help cure the infection. If you did not analyze the case any further past that point then someone following Freidman or Machan's individualism would find this case to be ethical because they did what they had to do to maximize profit for the business. Further analysis would show that there was very important information that Sanofi kept from the public. Sanofi hid important information from the public that could have possibly saved many more people from getting sick and saving fourteen young lives. When Sanofi did not release the facts about the use or side effects of the vaccine before distributing, they were maximizing profit without doing it within in the law. They hid important facts such as; you were not supposed to receive the vaccination if you were not infected and that if you did receive the vaccination without having the dengue infection then there was a ten percent chance you could get a much worse strain of the infection. Sanofi Pasteur had multiple chances to release vaccination information to the public before distributing the vaccine. They passed up on all of these opportunities so they could maximize profit for themselves but they did not do it within the law. They did not allow people to make choices for themselves; they made choices for the people, which is against all individualistic views and the equation of individualism. After much analyzation, under Friedman and Machan’s individualism, what Sanofi Pasteur did, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       The headline of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness in yourself and others. Studies have shown that the reason behind this is, if happiness is valuable, there is no difference morally speaking between my happiness and yours. John Stuart Mill was a very important voice for utilitarianism in the 1800’s and he said, “We ought to bring about happiness and pleasure in all beings capable of feeling it (and do so impartially). Utilitarianism in the dengvaxia controversy can be confusing in a way but overall, it is very easy to evaluate. Starting with how it can be confusing, people could argue that Sanofi Pasteur was giving this vaccine out to maximize their happiness by making money and maximizing happiness in others because it was giving them a cure to an infection that affects 400 million people worldwide. What Sanofi did was not maximizing happiness in others. They were selfish and did not release important vaccination information to the public because it made them millions of dollars and made themselves happy. Clearly, fearing death is not a sign of happiness, it is a fear of possible anger and sadness, which is the complete opposite of what utilitarianism, says. What Sanofi Pasteur did with the dengvaxia vaccination maximized happiness in themselves but not in the Philippine people or anyone else, that was receiving the vaccination. A person who closely follows utilitarianism would easily say that was Sanofi Pasteur did, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       Virtues are defined as the characteristics that allow things to function properly. Virtues depend on the things functions and the things circumstances. The virtue theory follow guidelines similar to those of Kantianism but in virtue theory, a follower would focus more on the means and less on the ends. A virtue theorist cares about a person’s character and how their actions define them as a person. Sanofi broke many important virtues that can show how strong or poor a business’s character is. To begin, honesty and trustworthiness are two big virtues that Sanofi Pasteur broke. They were not honest in any sense about the harm and risks of being vaccinated with dengvaxia. The Philippine government and citizens are not going to trust the company anymore because they were dishonest about a product that went to the extent of killing fourteen innocent schoolchildren.

Moderation is another important virtue that Sanofi violated. Sanofi Pasteur clearly lacked moderation because they released dengvaxia before it was fully functional and safe to vaccinate people. They rushed the release of the vaccination because they knew they could make a lot of money on it if people did not know the risks. That is when the vice of selfishness comes into play in this case. Sanofi Pasteur was all about that the money and the release that they would not even set up a fund for the families affected by the vaccination because they wanted to keep all of the money they could. In addition, when the Philippine government asked for a full refund, they refused because they said that they would be admitting defeat on the vaccine that in fact worked for some people. Finally, it was selfish of them to begin to release a vaccine that had side effects that could cause death and they did not even inform anyone about it until people started to get sick form it. From the perspective of a virtue theorist, what Sanofi Pasteur did in the dengvaxia controversy, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       What Sanofi Pasteur did to the Philippine people was completely disrespectful and inhumane. Under all of our ethical evaluations, there was not on theory that had any evidence or viewpoint to pass the dengvaxia controversy as ethical. Sanofi has their personal reasons to think that what they did was completely fine but they know deep down that they were doing it for the money and not for the fact that it could make millions of people feel better in a country where at one time 90% of the whole country and be infected with dengue at once. Most other business that did a lot of research on this case and knew what Sanofi did, would also say that this case is beyond unethical because of the way Sanofi treated other people and it resulted in the death of fourteen innocent children that could had been easily prevented if Sanofi forgot about the money and acted ethical.
       Sanofi Pasteur’s current issue is that they are under fire for hiding certain information from the public about their dengvaxia vaccine and what effect it has on people who receive the vaccination even if they are not infected with dengue. Sanofi’s current mission statement is, “Our Mission. Protecting and improving human heath worldwide us our main mission. We have to service an active role by providing, innovative vaccines for the prevention and treatment of disease and by playing an active role in the immunization community to maximize vaccination.” After the dengvaxia controversy, Sanofi Pasteur should change their mission statement to, “Our Mission. Make all humans knowledgeable of our vaccination information. To be honest about the side effects of our vaccinations, to protect and to improve the health of all humans that depend on us. This mission statement differs from their current mission statement because in this new one, we acknowledge how important the knowledge of our customers are and how we want to be seen as honest while also protecting the health of many just like in the prior statement. Sanofi should also consider smke new core values such as:

1. Customer Safety – This would tie in well with their mission statement of protecting and improving the health of all humans. Customer safety should be Sanofi’s main core value after the controversy because they need to make sure all of their customers are safe when receiving their vaccinations. Otherwise, controversies like this will come up repeatedly, resulting in money loss and possibly resulting in a shut down.
2. Honesty – Sanofi Pasteur making honesty one of their core values would be the smartest thing they could do. It would make everyone in their business see that every day and remind them of what the dengvaxia controversy did to their customers and their company. Seeing honesty everyday would make the company want to release all information about their vaccines to their customers so they can make their own decisions and see the risks of putting the vaccination into their body.
3. Happiness– Happiness would be a great core value for Sanofi. It would make them see happiness next to honesty and it would remind them of the dengvaxia controversy every time. It would show that not only is their happiness important but the happiness of their customers is even more important. It could remind people of different reasons to be happy even if it is something outside of work but that overall their mission is to make other people happy by helping their health.

       The company as a whole, Sanofi Pasteur should hire new executive employees and rethink their marketing department. Hiring new executive employees will allow the company to start fresh with new employees that they can give ethical training to. Rethinking their marketing department means they need to start marketing their new mission statement, core values and new executives instead of their products. This will show the world that they are trying to change and become a improved company ethically.

       To this day, the dengvaxia controversy is still going on. Sanofi officials are currently in court and on trial for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The action plan will help Sanofi Pasteur get back onto the right track profitably and ethically while the people of the Philippines get justice through the punishment of the old Sanofi Pasteur officials. Many innocent lives were at risk because of Sanofi’s actions and it affected many families for a long time. Using Kantianism, Individualism, Utilitarianism and Virtue Theory, the case is UNETHICAL.

By: Casey Rutkey

Works Cited:

       Caceres, Marco. “Dengvaxia Vaccine May Lead to More Cases of Dengue.” The Vaccine Reaction, 2 Jan. 2018, thevaccinereaction.org/2018/01/dengvaxia-vaccine-may-lead-to-more-cases-of-dengue/. Daniel, Ellen, and Ellen Daniel. “Sanofi Sued over Alleged Vaccine Death in Philippines.” Pharmaceutical Technology, 6 Feb. 2018, www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/sanofi-sued-vaccine-death-philippines/. Grady, Denise, and Katie Thomas. “Drug Company Under Fire After Revealing Dengue Vaccine May Harm Some.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/17/health/sanofi-dengue-vaccine-philippines.html. Murdoch, Lindsay. “Controversial Dengue Vaccine in Spotlight after Death of Filipino Children.” The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 Jan. 2018, www.smh.com.au/world/controversial-dengue-vaccine-in-spotlight-after-death-of-filipino-children-20180106-h0edmv.html. Staff, Science X. “Philippines to Charge Sanofi Officials over Dengue Vaccination Deaths.” Medical Xpress - Medical Research Advances and Health News, Medical Xpress, 1 Mar. 2019, medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-philippines-sanofi-dengue-vaccination-deaths.html. “Vaccine Information Statements (VISs).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5 July 2017, www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html.