Your professional ethics

AnonoBoy

I'm a hitman but because of my ethics I only kill, y'know, bad guys.

"If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there."

ScumLord

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

No, they are different companies with very different ethics evidently. One wants to produce pure, natural food. The other wants to pile a load of artifially produced chemicals into a huge container to produce as much product as possible to maximise profit.

All food contain chemicals. There's nothing in the activia that doesn't occur naturally in food. the major difference is probably that Activia are actively managing the chemical balance to ensure shelf life and that when you open the pot you see the yogurt you expect rather than something that's separated out into liquids and solids.

I think I'd rather pay extra for the other. I just can't believe what companies are trying to label as food these days, it's bile. Why the government are letting them away is beggars belief.

You have to be careful with some "organic" foods, there can be little difference between them and your typical processed foods bar one organic ingredient.

People these days get scared off by the word processed but the fact is just about everything you eat is processed in some form or another.

jimgoose

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm a hitman but because of my ethics I only kill, y'know, bad guys.

"If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there."

You my frieeend. I keeel you for naaathing!

Jawgap

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

No, they are different companies with very different ethics evidently. One wants to produce pure, natural food. The other wants to pile a load of artifially produced chemicals into a huge container to produce as much product as possible to maximise profit. I think I'd rather pay extra for the other. I just can't believe what companies are trying to label as food these days, it's bile. Why the government are letting them away is beggars belief.

Another round of labelling legislation was introduced just before Christmas - there has never been as much or as detailed information about our food. And it's only set to get more detailed with greater adoption of DNAtraceback, herd profiling, isotopic databases, new GS1 standards (the bar codes) etc,

The companies are following the market and not everyone wants or can afford organic etc food.

Some do, and that's a valid lifestyle choice, but it's a mistake to think that organic food, for example, is nutritionally better than conventionally grown / farmed food - a bad organic producer will produce some pretty horrendous stuff, whereas a good conventional producer will produce a qualitatively superior product. Saying that, companies are happy to provide, at a premium, organic products to feed on people's misconceptions.

ScumLord

Jawgap wrote: »

Another round of labelling legislation was introduced just before Christmas - there has never been as much or as detailed information about our food. And it's only set to get more detailed with greater adoption of DNAtraceback, herd profiling, isotopic databases, new GS1 standards (the bar codes) etc,

Soon they'll be putting the cows facebook profile on the packaging so you can follow her status right up to the one where she says "going for hols in the big truck, so excited, xxx... expect postcards".. Account closed..

CarpeDiem85

Check out an app called Chemical Cuisine, I used it a lot when I had a smart phone. It would really make you think about what is really in our food. Having a close relative die of stomach cancer really led me to rethink what I'm really putting into my body in every form, even down to toothpaste and deodorant.

Jawgap

ScumLord wrote: »

Soon they'll be putting the cows facebook profile on the packaging so you can follow her status right up to the one where she says "going for hols in the big truck, so excited, xxx... expect postcards".. Account closed..

It'll be QR codes which you can scan and they'll link to an app which will call up details of the farm, herd, date of calving, dates / place of processing etc. Plus, the app apparently will have the functionality to allow the farmer to hook up a web cam so you'll be able to get a live feed from the farm of origin! In fact that could be done now and probably will be before very long as soon as some buyer for a supermarket decides it's what they want.

There's also a potential plan to 'etch' QR codes onto chicken, fish and other meats (using a laser) that you'll be able to scan to get similar information when you sit down to a meal in a restaurant - I don't see that one being a flyer!

Jawgap

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Check out an app called Chemical Cuisine, I used it a lot when I had a smart phone. It would really make you think about what is really in our food. Having a close relative die of stomach cancer really led me to rethink what I'm really putting into my body in every form, even down to toothpaste and deodorant.

Just had a look - it's published / produced by CSPI. It's perhaps worth remembering that all these NGOs (especially in the States) are fighting for funding dollars and consequently it's in their interest to amplify situations to prey on people's concerns and ignorance.

Personally, I'd find writers, journos etc that I consider trustworthy and read them with a sceptical eye, for example Ben Goldacre ; Sense about Science; Alok Jha; and Monah Mansoori.

Rough Sleeper

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Sorry, I'd still need a degree in chemistry to understand what is in that yoghurt! I just checked the ingredients in my daughter's organic yoghurt... Organic apple and pear concentrate, organic skimmed milk, water, gelling agent and cultures. Not exactly rocket science to understand so why the huge difference in ingredients.

A degree in chemistry is useful if you want to perform complex structural analysis and multi-step syntheses. The ability to read and use a search engine is all you need to figure out what's on that list. Citric acid is found in fruits, for example, and sodium citrate is the salt of citric acid. Not everything that has a chemically sounding name is malign and not everything marketed as "organic" is good for you.

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

He told me that for every 10 tonnes of ice cream they produce, they put in 1 tonne of refined sugar. Another tonne of dextrose. Another tonne of glucose. It isn't labelled as sugar but they're all forms of sugar.

So they put in 2 tonnes of glucose then? Dextrose is glucose. And it absolutely is labelled as sugar in the nutritional information, why would you think otherwise? What do you think it's labelled as?

December2012

I could not do anything that would promote or extend the influence of the Iona Institute or a similar institution.

Venus In Furs

major bill wrote: »

Irishman works in the UK for UK company yet won't work on a project for the British Military cause it offends him?? Is that right?

Yes. What's the issue with that?

Venus In Furs

If some 17-year-old got a part-time job in Penneys, they are I suppose working for a company that profits from sweat-shops, but I doubt they even consider this, and I don't exactly think they should be hung out to dry for it.

I think most of us would prefer to avoid unethical companies, but sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way. There's exploitation all over the place. People who work for Apple, well there are the Foxconn workers. People who work on the Brown Thomas or Debenhams make-up counters - animal testing. I wouldn't condemn anyone for having those jobs. I mean, where does it end? Working in a supermarket, you're being paid indirectly by chicken battery farms. Centra - Coca Cola and coffee. Lifestyle Sports - sports-shoe manufacturers.

And I don't understand the baby formula issue. It's being worked on all the time to ensure it contains as similar nutrients as possible to breast-milk. Breastfeeding isn't always an option.

ScumLord

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I think most of us would prefer to avoid unethical companies, but sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way. There's exploitation all over the place.

I'd say it's next to impossible to avoid contributing to someone's death or extremely poor working conditions buying products today. The supply chain often crosses that line at some stage. The company you buy your electrical device off might hire people here and pay them a good wage, the company they buy the product off may have pretty decent working standards for their country, but their suppliers could just be a guy at the end of a telephone that can only meet the expected price by using child labour.

Tarzana2

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

I don't think I could ever work as a lawyer or solicitor. Having to defend someone who from evidence was more than likely guilty would make me feel physically sick.

Same.

I mean, barristers have to take the next case that comes along, regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter.

How could someone work like that?

Jawgap

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Same.

I mean, barristers have to take the next case that comes along, regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter.

How could someone work like that?

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about barristers.

Their first and foremost duty is to the court, not their client, to ensure justice is administered fairly.

From the Bar Standards Board in the UK, but I'm sure there's something similar here

You owe a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice. This duty overrides any inconsistent obligations which you may have (other than obligations under the criminal law). It includes
the following specific obligations which apply whether you are acting as an advocate or are otherwise involved in the conduct of litigation in whatever role (with the exception of Rule C3.1 below, which
applies when acting as an advocate):
.1 you must not knowingly or recklessly mislead or attempt to mislead the court;
.2 you must not abuse your role as an advocate;
.3 you must take reasonable steps to avoid wasting the court’s time;
.4 you must take reasonable steps to ensure that the court has before it all relevant decisions and legislative provisions;
.5 you must ensure that your ability to act independently is not compromised.

Tarzana2

Jawgap wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about barristers.

They do have the next case that come along though, they can't refuse and wait for the next one.

DEFTLEFTHAND

You don't have to practice criminal law if you're not cut out for it. Barristers can specialise in a wide range of areas.

Jawgap

Tarzana2 wrote: »

They do have the next case that come along though, they can't refuse and wait for the next one.

In theory yes - the 'cab rank' principle applies, but it is possible to wriggle out from it!

What you can't do is mis-represent your client. So if the client says "I did it but get me off" you can't go in and push arguments that suggest he / she didn't do it.

Likewise, if they say something like "I didn't do it, but I can't be bothered to fight it so I'm just going to plead guilty" - you can't push a guilty.

As I said earlier, the State has all the power - it writes the laws, it enforces the laws and it prosecutes the laws. It has practically unlimited and unfettered power and resources to bring to bear on the individual citizen, so they should be compelled to make sure they do the job properly.

plus, there are loads of examples where people are prosecuted maliciously (thankfully they are very few) or because they're the 'usual suspect' and the police can sometimes be a bit too lazy to follow up properly.

finally, there's the devastating impact a conviction (even for something very small) can have on someone's life - at the very least they deserve a fair hearing.

Jawgap

Tarzana2 wrote: »

They do have the next case that come along though, they can't refuse and wait for the next one.

You could argue the same for doctors in the ED - they have to treat the next person in the door on the basis of their medical needs.

Sit in the ED in the Mater and it's only a matter of time before someone from across the road is brought in for something - chances are they're not handcuffed to a prisoner officer because they parked on a double yellow line.

Should doctors de-prioritise a seriously ill convicted criminal over say a hard working parent on a minimum wage who'll lose out a shift if they can't back to work on the same day?

CarpeDiem85

^Hardly comparing like with like. A doctor treats looks after a person's physically wellbeing without having to ask any questions about their personal life and criminal history. If a lawyer/barrister represents a client, their main aim is to get their client off without jail term or on the lowest charge possible, even if the most awful crime was committed.

Tarzana2

Jawgap wrote: »

You could argue the same for doctors in the ED - they have to treat the next person in the door on the basis of their medical needs.

Like carpe said, not at all comparable or analogous.

Jawgap

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

^Hardly comparing like with like. A doctor treats looks after a person's physically wellbeing without having to ask any questions about their personal life and criminal history. If a lawyer/barrister represents a client, their main aim is to get their client off without jail term or on the lowest charge possible, even if the most awful crime was committed.

OK then, doors of the ED burst open - two stretchers are rolled in with attendant paramedic crews. Stretcher one is a guy who's been shot and is in a fairly critical condition.

Stretcher two is another guy shot in the leg - in pain but not not critical.

Patient #1 has been shot by several 9mm rounds through and through, is covered in dye and has several Garda watching him very carefully.

Patient #2 is wearing a Garda uniform and has been hit by a shotgun blast.

Who does the doctor treat first?

Or a guy is brought in having been shanked in the prison - the doc recognises him as a notorious gangland figure / paedo / embezzler or whatever - what does he/she do?

The doc doesn't have to ask - if someone is notorious enough they'll recognise them.

Jawgap

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

^Hardly comparing like with like. A doctor treats looks after a person's physically wellbeing without having to ask any questions about their personal life and criminal history. If a lawyer/barrister represents a client, their main aim is to get their client off without jail term or on the lowest charge possible, even if the most awful crime was committed.

.....and the evidence for that can be found where?

To help you, here's the code of conduct for the Bar in Ireland

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/documents/barristers_profession/CodeOfConduct.pdf

....and here's the corresponding doc for the Law Society.....

http://www.lawsociety.ie/documents/committees/conduct-guide.pdf

The job of the defending advocate is to make sure the State does the job properly - a very small minority of police are corrupt, some are lazy - prosecutors have targets etc. The system is imperfect and inefficient.

CarpeDiem85

I picked that profession as an example of a job I couldn't do. I couldn't do a job on a daily basis where my professional integrity was questioned. For example, my cousin was studying law. While in college, she was raped while walking home from a night out. Thankfully the Gardai caught the guy who committed the crime and the case went to court. My cousin gave her evidence and had to listen to the guy too. She said the whole situation upset her so much that she dropped out of her law course as how could she ever defend someone who she knew was guilty. Not something I could do either.

Jawgap

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

I picked that profession as an example of a job I couldn't do. I couldn't do a job on a daily basis where my professional integrity was questioned. For example, my cousin was studying law. While in college, she was raped while walking home from a night out. Thankfully the Gardai caught the guy who committed the crime and the case went to court. My cousin gave her evidence and had to listen to the guy too. She said the whole situation upset her so much that she dropped out of her law course as how could she ever defend someone who she knew was guilty. Not something I could do either.

Sincerely, sorry to hear about your cousin.

The only point I'd make is that the law is more than the criminal bar and some people build entire careers on prosecuting rather than defending, just as they build careers on family, property, administrative etc law.

Generally, regulated professions have codes of ethics / conduct and part of being a professional is that you accept the the obligation to abide by the relevant code of conduct.

Yes, barristers and solicitors do their job well and it does see guilty people walk - equally they do their job well and it prevents the State jailing an innocent person.

Similarly, doctors will treat you on the basis of your medical needs and will try to remain blind to other factors not relevant to your medical condition. Personally I don't know how doctors and nurses do it. Last year I spent an overnight in the Mater ED, some of the stuff I heard was infuriating (the lack of gratitude towards hard working staff being chief among them) and if it'd been me I think I've walloped a few people over the head with a bed pan as part of their 'treatment', but he staff just kept on going!

YFlyer

Plenty of Professors and Post Docs in Ireland would take research funding from the likes of Dow and Monsanto.

Jesus Wept

Trigger Happy wrote: »

That is not work, but life and death.
Thread is about 'Professional ethics'.

da ****

Wompa1

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The entire financial industry today, is basically receiving massively subsidized profits/wages, due to Quantitative Easing, and how that is pumping enormous amounts of money into commodities that the financial industry is making an absolute killing on - at the expense of the rest of society. Ethical my arse tbh.


A frequent comment you hear, is that the various bank bailouts that countries performed, was one of the most massive redistributions of wealth ever - almost like the redistribution is a done thing - except it's not over yet, we're still undergoing an enormous redistribution of wealth, from the rest of society to the wealthy - and the financial industry + QE is the focal point of the 'upward' part of this redistribution.

We have budget-balancing + austerity policies, removing money from economies when aggregate demand requires it more than ever - causing a huge removal of wealth from everyday society - and we have Quantitative Easing dumping huge amounts of money into commodities, which the financial industry are effectively receiving a gigantic subsidy from.


Every single person working in a financial company that is profiting from QE's effects on commodities, is benefiting through wages, from one of the most massive redistributions of wealth from rest of society to the wealthy, in history; nothing ethical about that.

People need not quit their jobs, but they should at the very least, be aware of what they're profiting from.

Business Ethics!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30

Get Real

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

The availability of cheap, nutrient-poor, calorie-rich foods absolutely is a significant factor in the prevalence of obesity.

I'm not sure I buy this argument. These foods aren't actually cheap when you look at it.

I think there's a wider issue in society with people doing things conveniently in a way that brings pleasure (human instinct)

A kilo of potatoes can be bought for as little as 39cent and cooked at home. A portion of chips (say 250 grams) could be 2.50 in the chipper. That works out at 10 euro a kilo.

The same can be said for staples such as porridge, root vegetables, fruit etc. ranging from 39cent (special offer) to 1.50 per kilo.

Even milk sold in fast food places costs 1euro for 250mls, that works out at 8euro for two litres, compared to 1.49-2euro in the supermarket.

So why aren't people eating proper wholesome meals, at a fraction of the price, at home?

A huge rise in disposable income compared to 50 years ago

A busier, more hectic lifestyle compared to that time

A lack of education among young people of how to cook proper meals due to:

smaller families, attending college rather than working in the home, working in careers, living a "single lifestyle" for longer with that disposable income etc.

Convenience foods aren't cheap, (when you look at the price compared to healthy meals at home) just convenient. And the demand for that lies behind how we as a society have changed.

lanos

Trigger Happy wrote: »

That is not work, but life and death.
Thread is about 'Professional ethics'.

ethics are ethics
don't be so pedantic