Your professional ethics

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