06 ethics reflections

8/3/2019 06 Ethics Reflections

1/20

David Owens-Hill /Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 2

Assignment: Write a reflection of chapter 2 using the prompts below as a guide:

1. Use the questions on p. 41 as prompts for reflections to prepare for next week's discussions.2. Using the discussion of Jean Val Jean and the Thernardiers on p. 42 as an example, identify the

way a protagonist(s) and antagonist(s) in a story you know illustrate contrasting communicative

ethics.3. Can you extend the example to people you know in real life?

Question one on page 41 threw me. It asked simply to describe the narrative that guides my life.

Such a simple request; such a complicated answer. My narrative can best be summed up by one of

Lincolns more famous quotes: When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad I use this

simple catechism to guide my actions choosing more often than not to do the things that make me

feel comfortable with my decisions. I do, however, live this narrative outside the framework of the

church and outside the constricting narrative of a specific political movement. I self-select as a liberal

democrat, but do not follow politics closely enough to deep-dive to a specific sub-group of liberal

democrats.

As I walk through my life, I try to observe and reflect, then act. I try to base my decisions on the

things that lead to a positive reflection of my actionsadmittedly I look for this positivity from

external observers as much as I look for it within myselfand I try to talk the talk as well as walk

the walk. My conversations with my closest friends are based in honesty, though rarely absolute. I

believe, and can reconcile within my narrative of doing what feels right, that there are minor fictions

that we never need to share. White lies, though liberating to work through, are often best left alone.

Bigger fictions are best uncovered, resolved and dismissed. Quickly!

Different narratives are often difficult to uncover. I think that there are select groups of people

who have keen intuition and can read peoples feeling about a given topic long before the subject has

had a chance to consciously form an opinion. I am not in one of those groups. I have no sense of

intuition, and thus have an incredibly difficult time understanding different personal narratives that


2/20

arent explicit. Once someone explains the narrative they use to build their beliefs, I believe that I can

understand and appreciate their directional thinking, but there are times when I dont understand

peoples reactions specifically because they have disguised, or simply havent discussed, the narrative

they use to construct their understanding.

What romance doesnt have conflicting communication narratives?! You can look to any love

story, from Hedwig, Yitzhak and Tommy Gnosis inHedwig and the Angry Inch to Juliet, Peter and

Mark inLove Actually to Cecilia, Briony and Robbie inAtonementthe classic love triangle that is

nothing more than conflicting communication ethics and narratives set to the overarching desire to

complete that which is missing from our lives through connectivity with another. Im not sure if

youve ever been in a love triangle, but theyre rarely ever quirky or resolvable. They rely on a

variable understanding of the ethics of commitment through communication. If someone says, I love

you, does it only stick until they love someone else more? Love triangles in film, as in life, rely on

multiple truths: it has to be right and true to love the person youre with, it has to be right and true to

accept love from the person who pines for you, it has to be right and true to love them back. All of

which defy the dominant relationship narrative.

I can extend the example to people that I know in real life, but Im confident that they would be

appalled to be brought into this. I have a couple of friends who disappointed me once. In a moment of

weakness, they slept together. Ordinarily not a topic that requires my input (unless Im involved, and

I wasnt.) I had, however, been romantically linked in the past to one of the two. The three of us were

now in an awkward, loveless, love-triangle. They both constructed elaborate fictions at first as they

relayed the parts of the story they were willing to share with me. They lied. Both by omission of fact

and by replacing the truth with something else altogether. Their motives were no different than the

narrative by which I live my life when they did good, they felt good appliedthey felt good about

sleeping with one another, and they feel good about keeping it from me to spare the embarrassment

and pain that it would cause. When they did bad, they felt bad caught up with them both as the lies

became too much to manage. It wasnt long before they came clean and explained their fling as a


3/20

passing infatuation. At first their lies made sense, and werent harmful. They were designed to avoid

harm, but as they grew and grew it became obvious that truth was the best way to avoid harm.


4/20


Assignment: Write a reflection of chapter 3

The principle tenants of Chapter three are that there are several practical approaches to communication

ethics:

Democratic approach Universal-humanitarian approach Codes, procedures, and standards approach Contextual approach Narrative approach Dialogic communication ethic

The thing that struck me about the reading is how instinctually I felt that some approaches were right

and others were less-so. For example, the Democratic approach feels like something I can get on board

with I approve of the opportunity to construct right and wrong through consensus and voting, but I take

issue with Universal-humanitarians foundation in enlightenment. While I believe in the enlightenment, I

question the ability of every communicator to tap into rationality in reality as a guiding ethical principle.

The book says that Pre-existing goods are revealed to society by gifted intellectuals who have the ability

and responsibility to discern them (Arnett, Fritz, Bell, 2009, p. 48). Earlier in this paragraph, I said that I

can appreciate the Democratic application, and feel that the Universal-humanitarian model is entirely

counter to this. When we expect people to believe the intellegencia, we ask them to give away a measure

of free will that I find to be necessary in determining ethics (perhaps I truly believe in a contextual

approach to ethics; an approach where each person is responsible for determining right-and-wrong for

themselves.)


5/20

The questions on page 58 of the text begin with an interesting question. The authors ask us to find

a student handbook and list several goods that are protected and promoted. Queens students are bound by

the Honor Code, which protects and promotes citizenship and civility among our students. We are

encouraged to create a sense of integrity and honor for its own sake while treating others with respect.

Further, all students resolve to uphold the code and not to tolerate violations by others. The Honor Code

is firmly rooted in Universal-humanitarianism in that a member of the intellegencia set forth the

principles that will guide us, but that are inherent in our academic culture. If you find yourself in violation

of these codes, procedures, and standards you must appear before a council of peers to determine the

severity of your punishment. At this point, you could use a contextual argument to explain your situation-

if you felt you were being virtuous. But ultimately the good that is being promoted and protected has

been handed down carefully selected from all the available goods and made useful for the universitys

population. Interesting, that in an environment of ideas, the most restrictive application of communication

ethics is used.

Id like to think more about the ways communication ethics are present in everyday situations,

and look forward especially to seeing how they intertwine with one another. No approach exists in a

vacuum, and I plan to write more about intertwining approaches around the same situation in my film-

based paper.

References

Arnett, R., Fritz, J., Belk L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.


6/20



On common sense:

The contemporary American assumption about smoking is that it is a terrible habit, completely

addictive and extremely harmful to ones health. Our collective common sense tells us that, if youre a

smoker, you shouldnt be and if you arent you had better not start. Im an educated person completely

capable of understanding both the physical implications of smoking and the root of the collective

common sense that encourages us not to smoke. Why, then, do I do it?

Its easy to blame smoking on the serious condition of nicotine addiction, but lets tell the truth for a

minute I was educated when I began smoking and began of my own volition. My defiance in the face of

common sense shared by the populous and by the medical profession predates the physical addition to the

chemicals in cigarettes.

If we believe the basic assumption that common sense is rooted in the fringes of hegemony, that it is

the manifestation of the assumptions we make about the way the world works, then we have to

understand where I was when I began smoking.

Id like to take pause for a moment and explain how this autoethnography of a bad habit relates to

Communication Ethics. Smoking is a physical act, but one that carries significant implied communication

markers. Smokers are oft perceived as weak-willed, immature, and irresponsible. Should I cite this?

Probably, but Im not quoting social science here Im speaking of my feelings towards myself and those

I know that share my bad habit. If we were stronger-willed, we would just stop. Lots of people stop, and

so could we. If we were more mature and responsible, we would look to the proven long-term risks

associated with smoking, perform a simple cost/benefit analysis and decide that we shouldnt have started

smoking in the first place, then revisit being strong-willed. Those three markers (being weak-willed,

immature, and irresponsible) are associated at least colloquially with an individual who is less-

trustworthy. If we assume that trust is a fundamental component of communication and especially


7/20

dialogue then we must assume that smokers have an increased potential to be poor communicators

because of the traits that carry over from their bad habits.

The text tells us that the loss of confidence in ones vision of universal truth requires us to take ever

so seriously the importance of peripheral visionIn our peripheral vision, we sense the reality of

multiplicity, the reality of difference all around us in daily communicative life. (Arnett, Fritz, Bell, p. 70)

When I began smoking, I was in art school and didnt see the long term effects of my habit. Growth and

maturity have shown me the effects and I chose to cease the action on which I write. But because I lived

with smoking for so long, I understand that the social stigma is real and unjust. The feelings expressed

towards smokers from the non-smoking populationthe very notion that if we really wanted to, we could

just stopis unfair. The common sense of public health tells us not to smoke, but each of our life stories

tells us that we may need this addiction to move from day-to-day until we are strong enough to quit.

Afterward:

I wasnt strong enough to quit. I didnt smoke for several weeks, but recently picked the habit

back up. Its clearer now, more than ever, that physical additioneven those that fly in the face of

common sensemust be understood within the context of the addicted. We can all agree that smoking is

bad. We shouldnt assume that all smokers are.

References

Arnett, R., Fritz, J., Bell L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.


8/20


Dialogic ethics listens to what is before one, attends to the historical moment, and seeks to

negotiate new possibilities (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p. 95)

What statement could possibly be more important in a programin a lifebased on the assumption

of socially constructed reality? The very notion of the social construction of reality assumes a social

presence in ones life; that is, other people have to be let in, or construction is halted by ones own

prejudices.

Im struck, when listening to the texts authors write about dialogic ethics, by the basic agreement

of this philosophy with Social Mediawhich constitutes an overwhelming amount of our everyday

conversation and dialogue. Some may argue that this is not a valid area for dialogue; I argue that any

platform in the public sphere is fair game. Social Media (capitalized and defined broadly on purpose) is

the contemporary equivalent of the Roman Senate. The modern town square. Todays fill-in-the-blank.

Its the space we allow ourselves to come together and discuss. For the sake of this reflection, well have

to table the reality that its nearly impossible to gage authenticity, personality, tone, privilege, etc. with

Social Media. Well make some basic assumptions about its appropriateness in this area: specifically, that

it is an open platform that allows one person to make a statement for others to evaluate, discuss, and

comment upon.

Gadamer tells us that dialogue assumes bias and that biases guide our unique insights and

contributions to everyday life, (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p. 86) while Freire tells us that the

invitation to dialogue is impossible between persons of unequal power. (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p.

87) If we believe only Gadamer, we would understand that the self-selective properties of Social Media

would eliminate the dialogic properties promoted by bias. If we believe only Freire (on just this particular

statement), we cant allow Social Media to be a space for discourse as Social Media is not an electronic

equalizer: disparities in privilege and access, Social Media create a very real division of power in this

space. But if we read them with Martin Buber, who tells us that dialogue is only one way to


9/20

communicate with another, (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p. 83) we can see that this platform is

validated as a dialogic platform as long as it is used in conjunction with other communicative spaces.

We use the term social construction of reality pretty fast-and-loose in our graduate program. Not

lightly, but frequently. I think its important to reiterate that the social construction of reality came to exist

in our minds the same way that that the Nile came to exist in the minds of ancient Egyptiansbecause

someone said it did. Said. Words, dialogue, and communicative acts created everything around us.

Our text tells us that there are 4 requirements for dialogic ethics literacy, and Id like to explore

how each relates to the use of Social Media as a dialogic platform:

Listening without demand: Social Media is a projectile platform. It is as easy to create a thought(via status update, Tweet, etc.) as it is to respond. It is also possible to listen (or read) each of

these projectile statements at ones leisure. The basic pretense of the status update is that someone

will read it, but they may not. Generally, there is no expectation of responsive act (depending on

the phrasing of the statement.)

Attentiveness: The Selfs narrative in this platform is revealed through context of all updates,generally not an express statement. The Others narrative can be presented in much the same way.

Recognition of the historical moment in time is easySocial Media is ongoing and contemporary;

its nothing if not a representation of a moment in time.

Dialogic Negotiation is a bit harder to prove using this platform primarily because of theomnipresence of web anonymity using this platform. Dialogic negotiation is a byproduct of

reflexive and responsive authenticity in communication and the onus is on the participants in

Social Media to bring this authenticity to the table.

Temporal dialogic ethical competence, as it relates to what worked and what didnt are bestshown by the ever-evolving nature of Social Media. If something doesnt work in the dialogue or

in the communicative acts, the media ceases to exist and is replaced by a more suitable alternative.


10/20

Is the notion of Social Media as a dialogic platform firmly rooted in a moment in time? Absolutely. In

fact, had I reflected on these communication theories 5 years ago or 5 years from now, this fleeting

thought about a contemporary communication tool wouldnt have crossed my mind. But I think its

fascinating to think about how established theories can be applied to a tool that many consider consumer-

only. Social Media, for the moment, has quietly infiltrated our communication processes and deserves to

be studied alongside, and with the same theories, as other communication channels.

References

Arnett, R., Fritz, J., Bell L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.


11/20



I found Chapter 6 to be a challenging read. Though I understood the basic premise that dialogue

must exist in a public space, and that public space must be protected and differentiated from private space

I struggled with the notion of public and private space. After mulling on this notion for nearly a week, I

read an excerpt from Elsewhere, U.S.A. that made the basic premise crystal clear.

In Elsewhere, U.S.A. Dalton Conley tells us that the intravidual is a product of changes in

economy, family, and technology. The intravidualhas multiple selves competing for attention within

his/her own mind, just as, externally, she or he is bombarded by multiple stimuli simultaneously (Conley,

2009, p.7). The intravidualis a physical representation of the depletion of public space. As we allow our

lives to be infiltrated by elements that were once external as we loose the ability to filter work from

personal we see the private sphere become endangered. Perhaps more problematically for dialogic

ethics, we see the private sphere become proportionally endangered.

Our text asks us in the chapter-end writing prompts to consider intimate and distant relationships

to understand changes in communication in both spheres. What would a reflection be without a personal

anecdote? I currently live with an ex. Its a toxic and mildly volatile situation that Im not fond of, but the

living situation benefits us both. When we were a couple we shared a tremendous amount of private and

intimate information that would be completely out of place in a distant or professional relationship. There

are details of our lives that are not public identity markers that we know and understand to be true based

entirely on contextual background, many of which do not stem from direct conversation. Because our

current situation is more transactional I have a condo, he needed a place to live temporarily, he moved

in and pays rent we slip into a transactional relationship more common among those people who are

professional colleagues or acquaintances. Our public and private spheres are completely intertwined and

our relationship suffers because of it. This story is not intended to hint at salacious details untold, rather to

explain the fundamental principle I used to interpret the reading: if we assume that dialogic ethics is


12/20

dependent on a particular arrangement of public and private space (e.g. dialogue happens in public space

where we are not always at home specifically because we are offered a disconnect from goings-on

related to personal space) our understanding of these public and private spheres is directly impacted by

our identity markers and the veracity with which we protect our own private sphere.

A challenge comes in understanding how to define, protect and encourage the protection of our

private sphere. If we allow that protection is essential to dialogue, which is then essential to dialogical

ethics, we must look externally (appropriately) to encourage those with whom we interact to be as

protective of the public sphere as we are. Im not sure how this is done, and our text didnt necessarily

offer a solution, but I assume that the basic answer to protecting the communication space required for

dialogue is housed in that very communication space. Just as the Invisible Hand modulates and course

corrects (in theory) the capitalist model, communication space must be self-policed, self-moderated, and

universally understood to be important. I am reminded of a basic rule of social media. There are few, if

any, moderators and there are few, if any, rules. Its important to take a level of personal responsibility for

actions on this platform, just as it is important to take a level of personal responsibility for your activity in

the public sphere. When we learn to leave work behind and learn to identify our personal identity with the

markers that indicate what we enjoy instead of what we do, we will see a correlating separation of

personal and private communication spheres.

References

Conley, D. (2009).Elsewhere, U.S.A. New York: Pantheon


13/20


Though the assignment was technically to write a reflection on Chapters 7 and 9 together, I am

deeply interested in interpersonal communication and decided to write this reflection separately.

When reading this chapter, the section on Hesed jumped right off the page as something that I

plan to study further in terms on interpersonal communication. Ive been interested lately in the blurring

of the lines between public and private space as we allow our interpersonal transactions to slowly erode

the foundations of these two spaces. I feel that our interpersonal transactions (note: I am consciously not

using the word relationships) are out of control. Weve lost the relationship between acquantence and

friend, college and friend, friend and loved-one. Perhaps we never had it to begin with.

Its easy to blame technology for our diminished interpersonal relationship capacity. Social

Media and the ease of communication facilitated by this platform have watered down our transactions to

the point that we are hard pressed to categorize our true friends. The language of these media are

deceivingcan we truly have 500+ friends?

Back to Hesed for a minute Im intrigued by the possibility that imperatives exist that are

understood to be for the good of the whole, but that do not require a request. I understand this to be a

valid mechanism in the academic study of society, but wonder how it manifests in interpersonal

relationshipsespecially those with our loved ones. How often can one pin-point a critical action required

to maintain a relationship with a loved one that just needed to happen? My guess is the number is so

astronomical that it cant be counted. We understand the needs of our loved ones, and act to preserve our

relationship with them (the good of the whole) and rarely need to be informed of the correct course of

action.

Lets turn this around for a minute. As I mentioned in a previous reflection, I currently live with

someone with whom I have a close interpersonal relationship. I have, for a number of years, cared deeply

for this person and have, at all costs, worked to maintain our relationship. We have been successful

friends for a period of time, but our relationship has only briefly ventured from this space. A few weeks


14/20

ago, I made a demand and violated the terms of Hesed by expressing what I thought should happen to

protect the relationship. By doing so, I also violated one of the primary assumptions of Chapter 7: that

you cant make demands on interpersonal relationships to transform them at your urging and will. The

text specifically tells us that we often unknowingly make unethical communication maneuvers by

demanding a form of interpersonal communication that does not naturally exist. I manifested my feelings

to words and demanded that the relationship, and the discursive parallel, follow my lead. By speaking the

demands, I unethically changed the nature of the conversations and the relationship, and killed the

common good (of protecting the relationship) that Hesed privileges.

Whoops.

Interpersonal relationships are complex beasts that exist in an odd space between the public and

private spheres. The key to authentically exploring these relationships lies in first understanding that they

are inherently complex and difficult to understand. Hesed is awareness. Awareness of your situation is the

key to analysis.


15/20


The saying refers to the current living practices that manifest a given good; the said refers to

memories of past and current public practices that form a substrate for future communicative action.

My career path started, as did so many of those with whom I graduated from art school, in a free-

wheeling, but corporate, ad agency. The environment was relaxed, energetic, and ideal for a nave graphic

designer and illustrator. I spend time making artwork meant to entice our customers customers into

buying things that they, realistically, didnt need. I had just been assigned to a new account, producing

point-of-purchase displays, advertisements, trade pubs, and other assorted collateral for a plastics

company that offered to replace the existing architectural molding on your house with identical, but new-

and-plasticized, architectural molding from their plant when I heard from a friend about an opening at an

establishedbut scrappynonprofit organization, which would ultimately change the trajectory of my

career.

Those of us at the ad agency believed in sustainability, we believed in fair business practices, we

believed in the power of design (as an artful form of expression) to change the world. We also believed

that you should put some cash in your pocket every chance you had. The saying at the agency was that,

by earning profits and by meeting client expectations, we could sustain a business model that would, in

turn, sustain all of our employees. Business was good, our paychecks were good.

I worked for a young art director who had been with the agency for just a few years. He worked

for the principal of the agency who had started the business from scratch about 30 years before. The Art

Directors name was Kevin, the principals name was Dick. Kevin was tasked with new business

development and client relationships. He actively sought reasons for our clients to design new work, and

in the process earn some billable hours for the agency.

Dick was in a different position. Dick was our said. And when he said, we listened.


16/20

Kevin was energetic and interested in growing the business to the point that his service would be

rendered invaluable. His intentions were honorablehis primary goal was making sure each and every

employee had enough work that we could continually justify the agencys payroll, and by doing so he

provided for the trickle-down recipients of our salaries (the landlords, the attendant at the gas station, the

farmers who sold food to Harris Teeter that we bought, etc.) His tactics, however, tended to lean towards

the predatory. He was an aggressive salesman who tried at every turn to encourage clients to produce

work that was usually only marginally effective. Though his actions lived in an ethically ambiguous space

(these were our clients, after all, and were not forced to do anything against their will,) I often felt that he

committed ethics violations in what I now know to be the saying.

Dick brought to the table years of gentlemanly public relations experience. His organizational

model was built on interpersonal relationships that developed into business transactions, eventually. Dick

brought to the agency an institutional memory and a set of texts with clients on which Kevin could act.

He was the pillar on which our business model was built.

Both men operated ethically in business and in their communication practices. Kevin was a

salesman, Dick was the institution. Together they formed a pair of businessmen who worked to sustain

what was, to their business, an overarching good: the sustainability of their workforce. The accountability

of their actions was present in the checks we received weekly, and the satisfaction of our clients in our

work. They were both publically scrutinized from with the agency and from our client base. We passed

muster.


17/20


The writing prompts in Chapter 10 ask me to think of a business or nonprofit for which I would

consider working, then evaluate their mission statement to understand which goods they protect and

promote. I dont need to think about this theoretically, as Ive done it already. Every time the chapter

mentions that change and reflexivity are necessary to protect and promote the good of a given

organization, I think (and noted in the margins) of my time in the nonprofit sector as a programming

staffer at an artist residency center.

Big business and industry are firmly rooted in their operational models, andthough a

commitment to change and reflexivity may be presentflexibility is a difficult notion to promote and an

even more difficult task to accomplish. Nonprofits, specifically small ones, are known to be nimble,

creative, energetic, and willing to do what it takes to promote their mission. The mission at the artist

residency center where I worked was short and clear: we seek to promote contemporary art and artists to

the vanguard of society. We housed 8 artists 3 times per year and paid stipends/living expenses so that

they could have what we often referred to as the gift of timethe ability to create their work, and reflect

on it, divorced from the everyday drudgery of paying bills, maintaining housing, maintaining studio

practice, etc. There were between 15 and 20 staff members and an operating budget of over $2m/year.

Our operation was nearly a decade old at the time that I left, and was well established in the artist

residency center community. A large percentage of our funding was dependent on grant allocation and

private donations.

I mention this to make a pointwe werent nimble in the same was that a .com startup would be;

responsive to every market action that required a change in our message or organization. We were nimble

in a way that only an organization that depends on gifted money from organizations and people can be. If

money didnt come, we would often reorganize to ensure our budget dollars covered our programs. One

year, after I had been working at the Center for nearly a year, our primary source of fundinga basic

operating grantwas significantly cut. We evaluated options to reduce our costs, including limiting the


18/20

number of residencies we would host each year. The decision was that this was counter to our very reason

for existence, and thus not an option to reduce cost. We instead cut nonessential programming and

reduced operating studio costs. The leadership had cause to evaluate the direction that the organization

was headed (what better reason than economic crisis to evaluate your current direction!) and decided that

the direction we were headed in regards to our general programming was true, and that the general

direction we were headed with our nonessential programs was off-course. Thus they were cut from our

line-up. The staffers responsible for these programs were responsive and flexible as wellno one was laid

off, and everyone reallocated their resources to other programs that stayed intact.

If I worked for a bank or large industry, I would imagine the situation would be very different.

Though discourse protocols are essentially the same in these large industries (we were, after all, a

professional organization,) the amount of time required to change the direction of hundreds or thousands

of employees would be much longer and could ultimately overshadow the original problem of funding

cuts.

Note that I no longer work for this organization. I left specifically because I disagreed with a new

direction that the organizations leadership saw as important to the organizations success. This is the

thing about change and reflexivity in organizations as they correspond to personal greater goods

sometimes they dont agree and the individualthe employeemust decide if the new direction is the one

theyd like to travel. I was granted the luxury to decide (as I had lined up a new job before leaving) but

many are forced to change directions with their organization with little input and no opportunity to

reconcile their personal promotion of the greater good. Its in instances like this when communication

ethics violations can occur in the workplace between personal communication ethics and professional

communication ethics. One must work hard to find the authentic sense of good when they do not have the

luxury of choosing the direction their organization takes in response to the need for change.


19/20


I am (surprisingly, considering my dining habits and my aversion to exercise) pretty healthy.

And yet, I am frequently drawn into conversations about healthcare and insurance.

If we accept the assumption that healthcare ethics exists to promote the common good of

responsiveness and of kindness in the face of overwhelming human despair, we must ask ourselves where

the general indicator of good falls. We are not entitled to health, nor are we entitled to healthcare. The

politics of Universal Healthcare has been covered with much greater poetry than I can accomplish here,

but the sentiment remains in my mind: how can we, as a people who consider ourselves ethical, allow any

of our co-contributors in society to remain ill? We, as a society, are falling short in our ethical

commitment to healthcare ethics by using our vocabulary to deprive our members the ability to protect

their own health.

The authors of our text tell us that In all cases, health care communication ethics centers on a

good that gives us a why for seeking information, for seeking help, for a reason to fight, for a reason to

think about others in the final moments of our own lives (Arnett, Fritz, Bell, 2009, p. 204). This passage

is charged with emotion and with passion for the ethics necessary in a difficult time in a communicators

life. Its clear from the tone of this chapter that the authors of this text are writing through the loss they

are feeling in the absence of their colleague who died during the writing of this book, but their emotional

tone lays down an important notion in health care communication ethicsthat the co-communicators will

probably not be engaging in neutral communication. Health care ethics exists in a time of deep gravity for

many people, and a natural response to this is to succumb to emotion.

Optimism is a critical component of health care communication ethics. Not the blind optimism of

someone who does not recognize the seriousness of a given situation, but the kind that comes from the

recognition that others lives are also complex places that we all occasionally require assistance

navigating.


20/20

As I mentioned, I am fortunate enough to be healthy (admittedly, a relative term.) There have,

however, been a few occasions when I have been ill and have needed help with the basic functions of life.

I can remember a particularly horrible case of the flu that kept me bedridden for just over a week. In this

time, when moving hurt and my thinking was often clouded by cold medicine and fever, I can remember a

friend who came by one day to change my pillow cases. This was a communicative act that transcended

the standard how are you feeling conversation (that is so unfruitful when one is ill) and showed

compassion in the face of my crud. My friend risked illness to make me, ever so slightly, more

comfortable. This act of care, however small, was responsive to my need for fresh pillowcases, a bit of

comfort, and a bit of encouragement that my illness was brief. The act was selfless, and reminds me that

though the illness was smallthere are people who care and will care when times are trying.

We must lead by example in healthcare communication ethics. We must act ethically to those that

are ill and those that will be ill. We must act ethically towards those that deserve better health care and

health care coverage. We must accept health as a basic human right, and know at all times that the way

that we communicate to those who are infirmed live as examples of how we communicate with everyone

in need, regardless of situation.

06 ethics reflections

Documents