Here's the thing....

"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..."-Jack Kerouac

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Diabetes Article (Blog #12)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/health/25ada.html?ex=1166158800&en=18616e2e9c7c7a2e&ei=5070

I applaud the ADA for making the first step to project a better ethical image. The baby steps are whats most important, and I look forward to seeing what the association does in the future.

However, is it really enough? And what about the phrmaceutical companies?

" Others remain concerned about the A.D.A.’s relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Their presence is evident throughout the charity, from its annual convention, which is largely underwritten by drug makers, to its board meetings, where pharmaceutical executives have served on the volunteer committees that set policy.

The A.D.A. says its independence is evident because it has often acted against the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Last month, for example, a panel it appointed to study how to treat people at heightened risk of developing diabetes decided against recommending the use of higher-priced brand-name drugs."

Big freakin' deal- one thing happens that they oppose, and suddenly they are completely independent of pharmaceutical companies? That's quite lame and not something that they should be claiming. For an association that regulates the food and drug administration, the ethical value would be to to not accept any money at all from something that could be swayed. To me, it looks very shady and unethical- who knows what money is being slid under the table for the association to be approving the drugs? This is not something that should be messed with- these are the drugs that people are buying everyday, and just because large companies give a ton of money does not mean they should get special treatment. Also, who says that its right for someone who works for a drug company to serve on a volunteer board that sets "policy" of all things? That is not ethical because the company is going to want to make the policy reflect positively on their drugs, to make it easier for them to be approved. We live in a money driven society,and something MUST be changed for it to start to turn. If not, we will be turning a corner for the worse- and thats scary.

Financial Conflict of Interest (Blog #11)

This topic is what really bothers me about society- the close-mindedness and the drive to get the cash, no matter the cost. Who cares where it come from? As long as the green is there, you are able to go forth with your cause. However, it seems to defeat the purpose of a cause-driven non-profit; what you stand for is how you represent your company, and by accepting money from a conflict of interest, it makes your company image change drastically.

In class, we discussed how alcohol companies have offered money to organizations such as M.A.D.D. Although Im sure that the money is large and a tempting offer, and the organization would love to take the money rather than have the organization completely disappear due to lack of funds. However, what kind of image is that sending if an organization is accepting money from something they advocate against? I applaud MADD for not accepting the money, and for taking an ethical standpoint that others in its position should follow. Just because you lack money does not mean you should ever compromise your morals and ethical standpoint.

I think its ludacris that companies accept money from the places that they advocate against. If you are promoting a cause, dont go after the money from a company that is the exact opposite of your purpose. Be a better person, and do not be driven by capitalism and the drive for money. I say it all the time, but we are the change of the world- who are we to not take actiom? Who cares if all of society is doing it? We owe it to ourselves to be ethical advocates, and support organizations that are ethical advocates, and actually follow it, as well.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Saving Truth (Blog #10)

We talked about saving truth during the last week of class, and I believe that everyones own "saving truth" defines the person that they are. What our saving truth is completely portrays the persona of us.

I believe that my own saving truth is a bi-fold- one is through my faith, and the other is through my beliefs towards socialism and capitalism. I am a follower of Christ, and truly believe in Christianity, and that Christ is my savior. That is something that I base my life around, by having good faith, which leads me to good works, and helps me lead my life. How I treat people, and how I react in situations, is based largely around the faith I have, and the community that I have around me through my church at Denton Bible. My faith is my saving truth, and is something that I should not deny telling others about.

"But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as He wanted them to be.”


Another part of my saving truth is my beliefs towards ethics, socialism and capitalism. I believe that as advocators of ethics, we should not cower in the face of corporations- instead, we should be the change. Instead of pointing fingers at others, perhaps we should point the finger at ourselves and become the ethical persona we want our company to be. Who are we to say that the world can't change? Who are we to fear that change? Who are we to claim that nothing can be done, and we are going to sit on our haunches and watch the world fade away? That's crap, and should not be tolerated. If we don't believe in ourselves, how can we believe in this field? I believe that my faith in God has enabled me to have faith in myself- faith to change the things that others don't want to.

I could go on and on about my own saving truth through faith, but this is the basis- the whole thing would be so many pages your eyes would get tired after reading only 1/3 of it. :)

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Close-mindedness and Ethics (Blog #9)

So, this past week in class has been interesting.

I fully agree with what Lambiase has said all semester, and especially what she said last wednesday. This is an ethics class, one used to make us think, where the constraints of society do not limit us to what we believe we can achieve, even when "everyone else is doing it." You know what? Who cares what everyone else is doing? Who is to say what we can or can not do, ESPECIALLY if it is right?

It is NOT right for an alcohol company to offer money to MADD. I don't care that they want to donate money, that is great. The point is the conflict of interest- what type of image would MADD be portraying if they accepted the money? I think it all goes back to the fact that I hate capitalism, and think that pure capitalism does not work. In a money driven by society, we feel that it is our right to accept whatever money is offered to us, especially if we are a non-profit. In a society where credibility should mean everything, its instead the money that defines who we are.

Before we start pointing fingers at others, perhaps we should look at ourselves, and what WE can change. We sometimes have no say over what other people do, but we are the change that we define in ourselves. If we take that one step, others will follow. We are not perfect, but we do have a say in how we live our lives.

As PR professionals, it shouldnt be looked at as "saving the world." We are the representation of companies and of people. We should have the highest standard of ethics out of anyone. Before pointing our fingers at the organization, lets look at ourselves for once- what can we do to change the system? It's not set in stone, and we should not be taught that it is. That is close-mindedness, and it should not be tolerated.