Archive

Archive for the ‘ethics’ Category

Medical Marijuana: A Primer on Ethics, Evidence, and Politics

January 22, 2015 Comments off

Medical Marijuana: A Primer on Ethics, Evidence, and Politics (PDF)
Source: The Journal for Nurse Practitioners – JN

Controversy in the United States about the decriminalization of cannabis to allow health care providers to recommend it for therapeutic use (medical marijuana) has been based on varying policies and beliefs about cannabis rather than on scientific evidence. Issues include the duty to provide care, conflicting reports of the therapeutic advantages and risks of cannabis, inconsistent laws, and even the struggle to remove barriers to the scope of practice for advanced practice registered nurses. This article reviews the ethics, evidence, and politics of this complex debate.

Final Report of the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Network Agency Accountability Board (Central Intelligence Agency)

January 16, 2015 Comments off

Final Report of the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Network Agency Accountability Board (Central Intelligence Agency) (PDF)
Source: Central Intelligence Agency
From AllGov.com:

In what amounts to the fox announcing it did nothing wrong while guarding the hen house, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has concluded its own people were not at fault for spying on a Senate investigation of the CIA’s torture program from last decade.

During a lengthy probe of the CIA’s controversial program, the Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed CIA files with the agency’s permission. However, in the course of the Senate committee’s work, several CIA officials searched the files being used by Senate staffers.

The controversy prompted the CIA’s top man, John Brennan, to organize a panel to determine whether his agency had acted improperly.

Brennan stacked the five-member panel with three senior CIA officers.

Corporate culture: The second ingredient in a world-class ethics and compliance program

January 12, 2015 Comments off

Corporate culture: The second ingredient in a world-class ethics and compliance program (PDF)
Source: Deloitte

In a business environment where reputational threats lurk around every corner, a strong culture of ethics and compliance is the foundation of a robust risk management program. This publication explores how a positive culture of integrity is the foundation for an effective ethics and compliance program, and when properly embedded into an organization, can create a competitive advantage and serve as a valuable organizational asset.

‘Competitiveness’ Has Nothing to Do With It

January 7, 2015 Comments off

‘Competitiveness’ Has Nothing to Do With It
Source: Social Science Research Network

The recent wave of corporate tax inversions has triggered interest in what motivates these tax-driven transactions now. Corporate executives have argued that inversions are explained by an “anti-competitive” U.S. tax environment, as evidenced by the federal corporate tax statutory rate, which is high by international standards, and by its “worldwide” tax base. This paper explains why this competitiveness narrative is largely fact-free, in part by using one recent articulation of that narrative (by Emerson Electric Co.’s former vice-chairman) as a case study.

The recent surge in interest in inversion transactions is explained primarily by U.S. based multinational firms’ increasingly desperate efforts to find a use for their stockpiles of offshore cash (now totaling around $1 trillion), and by a desire to “strip” income from the U.S. domestic tax base through intragroup interest payments to a new parent company located in a lower-taxed foreign jurisdiction. These motives play out against a backdrop of corporate existential despair over the political prospects for tax reform, or for a second “repatriation tax holiday” of the sort offered by Congress in 2004.

Measuring Illegal and Legal Corruption in American States: Some Results from the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Corruption in America Survey

December 16, 2014 Comments off

Measuring Illegal and Legal Corruption in American States: Some Results from the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Corruption in America Survey
Source: Harvard University (Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics)

Although corruption is not endemic in America as it is in several other countries, it does exist. According to the Justice Department, in the last two decades more than 20,000 public officials and private individuals were convicted for crimes related to corruption and more than 5,000 are awaiting trial, the overwhelming majority of cases having originated in state and local governments.1 Understanding the causes and the consequences of corruption and designing the policies in the fight against it starts with measuring corruption itself. How do we measure corruption, an activity that requires secrecy? The most commonly used measure of corruption in American states comes from the Justice Department’s “Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section.” These data cover a broad range of crimes from election fraud to wire fraud. The measure, based on the Justice Department data, suffers from several significant problems, however.

Documents in the News — Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program – Foreword, Findings and Conclusions, and Executive Summary

December 9, 2014 Comments off

Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program – Foreword, Findings and Conclusions, and Executive Summary
Source: U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions

#1 The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.

#2 The CIA’s justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.

#3 The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.

#4 The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.

#5 The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.

#6 The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

#7 The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

#8 The CIA’s operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

#9 The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA’s Office of Inspector General.

#10 The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques.

#11 The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.

#12 The CIA’s management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program’s duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.

#13 Two contract psychologists devised the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.

#14 CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.

#15 The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA’s claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate.

#16 The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.

#17 The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures.

#18 The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.

#19 The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.

#20 The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States’ standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.

Corruptions Perceptions Index 2014: Clean Growth at Risk

December 8, 2014 Comments off

Corruptions Perceptions Index 2014: Clean Growth at Risk
Source: Transparency International

Corruption is a problem for all economies, requiring leading financial centres in the EU and US to act together with fast-growing economies to stop the corrupt from getting away with it, anti-corruption group Transparency International said today.

In the 20th edition of the Corruption Perceptions Index, scores for China (with a score of 36 out of 100), Turkey (45) and Angola (19) were among the biggest fallers with a drop of 4 or 5 points, despite average economic growth of more than 4 per cent over the last four years.

More than two thirds of the 175 countries in the 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index score below 50, on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). Denmark comes out on top in 2014 with a score of 92 while North Korea and Somalia share last place, scoring just eight.

The scores of several countries rose or fell by four points or more. The biggest falls were in Turkey (-5), Angola, China, Malawi and Rwanda (all -4). The biggest improvers were Côte d´Ivoire, Egypt, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (+5), Afghanistan, Jordan, Mali and Swaziland (+4).

The Corruption Perceptions Index is based on expert opinions of public sector corruption. Countries’ scores can be helped by open government where the public can hold leaders to account, while a poor score is a sign of prevalent bribery, lack of punishment for corruption and public institutions that don’t respond to citizens’ needs.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,001 other followers