Fernando Brokovich
Blog #2
In
August of 1992, the Law Firm Masry and Vititoe assigns 32-year-old Erin Brokovich
the task to file a pro bono case regarding Pacific Electric’s
interests in buying a family residence in Hinkley, California. However, Brokovich
notices blood samples mixed in with the real estate files. Though she
has no formal legal training, Erin discovers that Pacific Gas & Electric
allowed the leakage of a contaminant called Chromium 6 into the well water of
Hinkley, California, for over 30 years. Several residents of this small desert community
suffer from ailments ranging from chronic nose-bleeds to cancer.
Now for
the purpose of decision-making, let us assume that in 1992 I worked as a local
news reporter. I come across Brokivich’s confidential research documents that
justify the claim that Hexavalent Chromium 6 is carcinogenic through inhalation
and possibly through ingestion. I make copies of her documents and discern if
this illegal act justifies the greater good. I also learn that certain people
feel this information should be kept secret.
Without
a doubt I would utilize the dialogic ethic as “the protector and the promoter
of the emergent, the unexpected, and the unforeseen-it is the communicative
home of hope for an idea, a viewpoint, or an action that has not yet been
apparent” (Arnettetal, page 55). Answers to questions would then lead me toward
an ethic decision. Why would someone want this to be a secret? Who is at stake
by this disclosure? If the possible answer the prematurity of information would
give P&G time to cover up its mess then my decision would be to keep it a
secret. But another hypothetical answer might lead to a different choice. For
example the documents had substantive factual proof that P&G was leaking
Chrome 6 into the drinking water and people were being hurt. I would have to
reveal the information and suffer the consequences.
If I
report on an issue without valid facts then I risk losing my credibility.
“Media practitioners of all stripes, regardless of why they are using media channels, aspire to have one thing:
credibility” (Plaisance page 27). A news package about P&G based on
documents without all the evidence could damage the company, its employees,
employee’s families and perhaps stir up a panic within the community. Morality
of care would help to judge the impacts of such exposure. For Brokovich her
success in the case against P&G led to a movie of her story starring Julia
Roberts and her own TV show. She continues to reveal any injustices that might hurt
the good of the people.
But
still today people like Michelle Markin are not supporters of Brokovich. Markin
wrote an article on Michael Fumento’s website accusing Brokovich of a case with
an appeal to emotion rather than logic. She wrote how “individual anecdotes
always make good witness statements and emotional dramas. They are not,
however, scientific proof” (http://fumento.com/brockovich/mickeyerin.html
). She also notes investigative journalist and science author Michael Fumento’s
recent article in the Wall Street Journal last week, “no one agent could
possibly have caused more than a handful of the symptoms described, and
Chromium 6 in the water is almost certainly couldn’t have caused any of them” (http://fumento.com/brockovich/erinwsj.html).
Both Markin and Fumento accusations are an appeal to logic that is indeed
illogical. Fumento is not a scientist or expert. Notice how he states Chromium
6 in the water is almost certainly
could not be the cause. He uses absence of evidence to justify his claim.
Markin confuses her audience on the failed reasoning of emotion and scientific
proof. The Brokovich case was built on the “need to be ‘contextualist’ in our
thinking, according to contemporary philosophers. That is we need to realize
that the complexities of a dilemma will often dictate how we might apply
certain principles, and that these principle are not one size fits all” (Plaisance
p. 241).
Now if
this was still 1993, I might consider doing my own quantitative case study. However
continued research by the US Dept. of
Health and Services reported that ingestion of Chromium 6 in lab rats did
indeed cause cancer. The issue at hand is to figure out how much humans can
drink Chrome 6 before getting cancer.
On
September 30, 2010, the EPA’s released the Iris Program draft of human health
assessment for chromium-6. This draft IRIS health assessment addresses both non-cancer
and cancer health effects associated with the ingestion of chromium-6 over a
lifetime. This is the first EPA cancer assessment for hexavalent chromium 6 by
ingestion. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA
Chromium6indrinking water.pdf)
I am all
about relativity. But also believe in the universalism of truth where “ethics
is about how we grapple with the difficult gray areas” (Pliansance pag 22).
Works Cited:
Pliansance, PL Media
Ethics Thousand Oaks, CA 2009
Arnettetel Approaches
to Communication Ethics, The Pragmatic Good of Theory Chapter 3 .pdf
Links Cited:
very well written & researched. Erin's discovery made her a reluctant hero.
ReplyDelete