Whistle Blowing

Posted: October 17th, 2013

Name:

Instructor:

Course:

Date:

Whistle Blowing

Whistle blowing can be described as the act of revealing wrongdoing that occurs in a particular organization. There are two types of whistle blowing. Whistle blowing can be internal or external. Dr. Walter Tamosaitis was involved in both internal and external whistle blowing. In an internal meeting, he exposed the safety violations that were being carried out by the Waste Treatment Plant. After his dismissal from work, he also exposed the situation to federal Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Richard de George identifies five conditions that justify whistle blowing. In regards to these five conditions, Dr. Tamosaiti whistle blowing is justified.

The justifiable criterion is, the policies or products of a firm have to be harmful to the public (Arszulowicz and Wojciech 47). The major issue was that the clean up activities of WTP would lead to major health hazards. The clean up would cause radiation leak that would eventually cause a major melt down. Immediate effects of exposure to radiation are like radiation sickness. Continuous exposure can cause damage to internal organs. The second condition is for the potential whistle blower to identify this cause of harm and report it to the necessary authority (Arszulowicz and Wojciech 47). Dr. Tamosaitis expressed his concerns during an internal meeting. For this particular action, he was removed from the project.

Dr. Tamosaitis’ demotion from his job demonstrates the George’s third justifiable criterion. For whistle blowing to occur, the immediate reporting channels in a company must give a deaf ear to the concerns of the potential whistle blower. The individual is then to approach the board concerning the situation. The doctor’s dismissal from work implied the management’s unwillingness to rectify the identified problem. Dr. Tamosaitis then wrote a letter that addressed the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. In his letter, he documented his concerns giving evidence in regards to the safety hazards of the project. His actions are in accordance to the fourth and fifth criteria. The fourth criterion stipulates that the individual should document evidence in support of his claims while the fifth criterion talks about the whistle blower providing reasons that show his whistle blowing will provide a remedy for the situation (Arszulowicz and Wojciech 48). Through the doctor’s external whistle blowing, investigations were carried out and proposals were made for the Secretary of Energy to remedy the situation.

Dr. Tamosaitis had a moral obligation to blow the whistle. Through exposure to radiation, basic human rights of the victims would have been infringed. The doctor identified this flaw and he had the responsibility of ensuring that the lives of the victims were protected. Many may argue that Dr. Tamosaitis had a moral obligation to maintain his loyalty to the company. This is because employees have various moral obligations to their companies. However, Dr Tamosaitis also has moral obligations to the society. I believe that the doctor’s internal whistle blowing was a gesture of trying to save the company’s face from public embarrassment. The company’s refusal to respond to this complaint justified the morality behind the doctor’s action. Through his whistle blowing, the doctor was trying to help deliver justice to the innocent lives that were at risk.

Moral codes and Richard de George’s five conditions justify Dr. Walter Tamosaitis’ internal and external whistle blowing. His actions were able to deliver justice. This is because the faulty clean up systems that posed health hazard were finally corrected. Employee’s whistle blowing should be motivated by moral reasons that supersede selfish gain.

Work cited

Arszulowicz, Marek, and Wojciech Gasparski. Whistle blowing: In Defense of Proper Action. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2010. Print.