Fire and Emergency Services Administration-CH.11_split_1.pdf

CHAPTER 11 Ethics LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, the student will be able to: ∎ Understand the ethical justification for government oversight of the publi...

CHAPTER 11 Ethics LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, the student will be able to: ∎ Understand the ethical justification for government oversight of the publi fire and emergency services (FES) (p 207). ∎ Understand the creation, effect, and importance of a professiona organization’s code of ethics (pp 207–208). ∎ Identify commonly cited justifications for lying (pp 209–211). ∎ Understand the impact that lying and other ethical issues have on fire and emergency services (p 212). ∎ Examine the role of the administrator as a caretaker of public trust (pp 212– 214). ∎ Examine how ethics affect cost-benefit analysis in the FES (pp 214–215). Case Study An Example of a Tough Ethical Choice During his first week as fire chief for the Prince George’s County Maryland Fire Department, now retired Chief Steven Edwards faced a serious ethical dilemma that could have cost him his job. A citizen group in the county was holding a fundraising event for the county executive. The chief learned that the event, which was already advertised and had sold hundreds of tickets, was being held in a vacant store that had significant fire code violations. He contacted the event planners, but they were very upset and did not want to cancel the event. Still, the chief believed he had no choice and contacted the county executive to explain that the event could not be held in the building. To his surprise, the county executive thanked the chief for presenting him with this information and wound up moving the event to a tent close to the original site. In this situation, the chief and the county executive displayed courage and personal integrity, making a tough decision in the name of ethics (Edwards, 2010). Discussion Questions 1. There is nothing more frightening to a chief administrator than to run afoul of a political boss. Would you have another suggestion on how to handle this situation?  2. Imagine you were this fire chief and you did nothing about these fire code violations. Would you just pretend it did not happen? Would your lack of being ethical by not enforcing the fire code be spread around the department’s personnel? 3. Your personal ethics can and do influence your behavior in your public official position. What would you do about the following ethical issues: a. You are in line at the grocery store and you notice the person in front of you drop a large quantity of money. Would you keep it or give it back to the person who dropped it? b. As your groceries are being tabulated, you notice that an item was missed and will now be free for you. Because this is a large corporation, you say nothing. Is this ethical? Data from Edwards, S. T. 2010. Fire Service Personnel Management. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Brady/Prentice Hall Health. Ethical Behavior The American Heritage Dictionary defines ethics as a “principle of right or good conduct” or “a system of moral principles or values” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2005). Ethical behavior is guided by that system of moral principles. Although using one’s ethics to make appropriate moral decisions might seem straightforward, increasingly complex situations and ever- changing policies can complicate decision-making. In addition, most people have a set of values derived from family, friends, experiences, and religious beliefs. Some believe that only those actions that are illegal, such as robbing a bank, are wrong. However, illegal actions are only a subset of the larger category of potentially unethical actions. Some experts have even argued that most of our likes, dislikes, and habits are established in or before kindergarten. Robert Fulghum in his book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten (2003) lists the following examples of the things learned early in life: share everything, play fair, don't hit people, put things back where you found them, don't take things that aren't yours, say you're SORRY when you HURT somebody, warm cookies and cold milk are good for you, and take a nap every afternoon. Not everyone has the same experiences or cultural background as Fulghum describes. So this chapter’s discussion gives the reader a way to judge ethical choices without the normal prejudices most of us have internalized from past experiences. Unethical behavior often involves some form of lying, such as deliberately presenting a false statement or action as true or hiding factual information with the intent to deceive. This can be a difficult issue to discuss and study because many people hate being called a liar and either rationalize their behavior or deny their actions are lies. No one is perfect and everyone has made mistakes. However, it is hoped that this chapter offers a new way to govern future decisions and behavior by administrators. The trick to success is to learn from one’s mistakes; to learn, one must identify and admit the mistake and commit to correcting the error in the future. Administrators of FES agencies and organizations make many decisions each day, and every decision has potential ethical consequences. Because many of these decisions are ultimately made by the chief officer, the officer needs to consider whether he or she is making morally correct decisions. This is not always easy to determine, especially for the decision maker. Professional Ethics Ethical behavior includes personal and professional conduct. For example, personal ethics may include such behaviors as complying with laws, complying with societal norms, telling the truth, and having concern for others’ well-being and respect for their freedom and independence. Professional ethics, however, may include such behaviors as complying with company policies and procedures, telling the truth to the public and elected officials, protecting the confidentiality of coworkers and those one serves, not mismanaging financial resources either unintentionally or illegally, and performing due diligence for the safety of the workers and the public. Many professions are under the oversight of organizations that regulate the ethical behavior of their practitioners. For example, states may create boards made up of practicing professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, or engineers, to regulate a specific profession. As noted by philosopher and ethicist Sissela Bok in the book Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, these boards should expose any members of the profession who act illegally or unethically; however, this is rarely the case (Bok, 1999). A colloquial expression to describe this relationship is “the fox watching the hen house.” Although FES does not have any organizations that specifically watch for unethical actions, a few fire organizations do have the potential to make judgments on professional conduct. These organizations include the National Fire Protection Association, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the International Association of Fire Fighters. Some of these organizations, such as the Florida Fire Chiefs’ Association (FFCA), use a suggested code of ethics to guide members’ conduct. The FFCA’s Code of Ethics cites the following principles (FFCA, 2012): Maintain the highest standards of personal integrity; be honest and straightforward in dealings with others; and avoid conflicts of interest. Place the public’s safety and welfare as well as the safety of members above all other concerns. Be supportive of training and education, which promote safer living and occupational conduct and habits. Ensure that the lifesaving services offered under the members’ direction are provided fairly and equitably to all without regard to other considerations. Be mindful of the needs of peers and subordinates and assist them freely in developing their skills, abilities, and talents to the fullest extent; offer encouragement to those trying to better themselves and the fire service. Foster creativity and be open to consistent innovations that may better enable the performance of our duties and responsibilities. Another detailed Code of Ethics can be found at the National Fire Academy web site: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/code_of_ethics.pdf and is worth taking into consideration. Similar to this example, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians adopted a Code of Ethics in 1978. This Code acknowledges the emergency medical services (EMS) practitioners’ obligation to make ethical patient-care decisions and to avoid opening their organization to liability. As stated within the Code of Ethics, “Professional status as an emergency medical technician and emergency medical technician-paramedic is maintained and enriched by the willingness of the individual practitioner to accept and fulfill obligations to society, other medical professionals, and the profession of emergency medical technician” (Data from Gillespie, 1978). The Code also goes on to list a number of specific ethical behaviors to follow, including conserving life and alleviating pain, respecting the dignity of all patients, maintaining confidentiality, and upholding medical standards and laws. EMS organizations, many of which are private companies, are expected to train to a professional standard and to investigate incidents where unethical acts may have occurred. Most organizations are held accountable to local government oversight, which is also responsible for investigating any incident involving unethical behavior or a departure from city- or county-approved protocols or policies. If the oversight entity finds wrongdoing, the incident might then be referred to a state-level EMS authority that would perform its own investigation and decide whether or not to take disciplinary action, such as revoking an EMS provider’s license. In situations where the failure of an administrator, supervisor, or organization to comply with a safety regulation results in a death or serious injury, state or federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agencies step in to assess unethical conduct. Although there have been some past examples of chiefs being dismissed after a firefighter death, generally in cases of noncompliance, the organization—not the individual—is found at fault. This is one situation where the administrator cannot be too careful. Seminars that cover these safety regulations for all officers is a must to assure that everyone is fully aware of the requirements. Ignorance is no excuse. CASE STUDY The following case study was taken from actual events but the names and all of the circumstances are not factual. In the fire service, there is nothing more prestigious than the fire chief becoming the President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). For that reason a fire chief of a large fire department approached his boss and explained what he was planning. He mentioned that it would be a prestigious benefit for the municipality having the best fire chief in the country. He needed approval and commitment of funds to send a team of fire officials to several national conventions. These funds were unbudgeted and unapproved costs. The mayor subsequently made arrangements for the funds to be made available for the fire chief’s mission. This team was needed to do the personal contacts for convincing many individuals, groups, and associations to provide backing in the form of endorsements and some donations. The position was the 2nd Vice President and was the entry point for the progression to President two years later. The process of using taxpayer’s funds to pay for this project is somewhat questionable, but not uncommon. At each conference the fire chief’s financial staff would reserve and pay for hotel rooms for the team. It also was common practice for the candidate to arrange an open bar reception to influence voters. This was not an inexpensive endeavor. The funding for these open bar receptions was paid for by a kickback from the hotels. When making the hotel reservations the chief’s representative would agree to a fee per night of x dollars. This was at the high end of the normal hotel room costs, but because these reservations were for a large number of people, the representative would demand a kickback, which was used to buy liquor and even a buffet. Clearly this is unethical. The justification: for the greater good and prestige of the fire chief and municipality. Discussion Questions 1. Was there a significant difference in ethical behavior between the mayor’s funding involvement and the fire chief’s staff arranging the kickbacks? If yes, is one more egregious than the other? 2. Do you know of any other spending of public funds that would be open to kickbacks? List a minimum of two. 3. Could these same circumstances occur when purchasing fire equipment or apparatus in your department? Why People Lie Researchers report that extroverts and coworkers are some of the most likely culprits of lying (Feldman, 2005). The tendency of coworkers to lie to each other is an important phenomenon to understand in the FES field. For example, consider the fire chief who is surrounded with staff who are “yes individuals.” This practice prevents the discussion of controversial policy issues and hinders the delivery of honest feedback. Such lack of communication is unhealthy to the organization. However, the most insidious types of lies are not those that are classified as boasting or are told in the name of discretion or politeness. The most harmful lies involve leaving out the truth or stating something misleading or absolutely false. These types of lies have the potential to destroy trust and intimacy in personal and professional relationships. For example, a universal complaint concerning many politicians is that when they are running for election, they make many promises that are not kept once elected or they make deals with large donors for favors (quid pro quo) when elected. This has resulted in very low approval ratings for many politicians. For April to June 2020, a Real Clear Politics survey found only 25.8% of those surveyed approved of the U.S. congress job. This may be a reflection of the promises not kept or kept for large donors. Therefore, it is important to understand why someone would lie in the first place. According to University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman, the act of lying is attached to a person’s self- esteem: “We find that as soon as people feel that their self-esteem is threatened, they immediately begin to lie at higher levels” (Data from Feldman, 2005, p. 373). It is with this notion that lying can be viewed as a person’s attempt to see himself or herself as they would like to be seen by others. “People are so engaged in managing how others perceive them that they are often unable to separate truth from fiction in their own minds” (Data from Feldman, 2005, p. 375). For people to keep fact and fiction separate, they must consciously commit to telling the truth in every situation. CHIEF OFFICER TIP Habits of Dishonesty The study entitled “2012 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth” discusses the results of a 2012 study conducted by the Josephson Institute in which the ethical habits of nearly 23,000 high school students were examined. According to the study it revealed some disturbing habits of dishonesty for the workforce of the future, including the following alarming statistics (Josephson Institute, 2014): ∎ 36% answered yes to ” A person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed.” ∎ 55% admitted to lying to a teacher. ∎ 52% of students admitted to cheating on a test, with 38% saying they had done so more than once. Although these numbers may be concerning, what is even more surprising is the students’ perspective on ethics. “Some 93 percent of students indicated satisfaction with their own character and ethics, with 81 percent saying that ‘when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know’” (Josephson Institute, 2014). Keeping in mind that these same high school students are now elected or appointed officials, members of the FES organization, and even officers, administrators must use a zero-tolerance policy for lying for themselves and the members of their organization. This kind of behavior can be changed with perseverance and leading by example. Finally, one issue that has become a hot topic is systemic racism that is asserted to be prevalent in the American culture. “I am prejudiced against certain groups” was asked in the survey, and 77% of the high school students reported that they were not. What is not known is the race, religion, and ethnicity of the students. Therefore, when you considered all the possibilities of prejudice this seems like a good result. The main prejudice reported as systemic racism is the claim of the police prejudice against blacks even though real world statistics do not back up this perception. In a July 2020 USA Today analysis of the statistics, they concluded that: “…the evidence does not support the charge that biased police are systematically killing Black Americans in fatal shootings. Much of modern policing is driven by crime data and community demands for help. The African American community tends to be policed more heavily, because that is where people are disproportionately hurt by violent street crime. In New York City in 2018, 73% of shooting victims were Black, though Black residents comprise only 24% of the city’s population” (Ref: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/03/police-black- killings-homicide-rates-race-injustice-column/3235072001/). However, there are numerous other possible prejudices such as religion, age, weight, race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. and these were not addressed specifically in the survey for the 23% who reported prejudice against a group. For administrators, they must guard against these prejudices and require sensitivity training for members. Even though there are differences between members, they must all work together without personnel conflicts. Justification for Lying Imagine a woman is in her kitchen at home when two very young children come running through the kitchen door. They tell her that a crazy person is chasing them with a knife. The woman quickly directs the children to hide in a closet. Almost immediately after the children close the closet door, a man bursts through the kitchen door with a large machete in his hand. He asks the woman in the kitchen if she has seen two children. The woman lies to him and tells him she has not seen any children. The intruder goes away. Is this person justified in lying? The rational answer is yes. However, most situations are not so “black and white” TABLE 11-1. Trying to determine if a lie is justifiable is often very difficult, and opinions can vary drastically. The following sections address a few commonly cited justifications that may not pass the test as ethical. “It’s for the Public Good” Administrators who see themselves superior by means of birth, wealth, training, or education often feel they have a right to make decisions for the public. Bok explains, “Convinced that they know the truth—whether in religion or politics—enthusiasts may regard lies for the sake of this truth as justifiable. They may perpetrate so-called pious frauds to convert the unbelieving or strengthen the conviction of the faithful. They see nothing wrong in telling untruths for what they regard as a much ‘higher’ truth” (Reproduced from Bok, 1999, p. 7). In practicing this belief, however, administrators are left with only their own consciences to judge whether their choices are morally right. TABLE 11-1 Examples of Ethical Dilemmas ∎ Should a paramedic lie to a patient who asks, “You won’t let me die, will you?” ∎ Should professors and supervisors exaggerate the excellence of job applicants when giving references to give the applicants a better chance at being hired? Is this fair to the potential new employer or other applicants? ∎ Should journalists write false or misleading statements, or fail to tell the whole story, if doing so supports their personal views on a subject that they strongly believe is right? ∎ Should a fire chief exaggerate the consequences (e.g., more deaths and property loss) of not funding the FES budget properly? ∎ Should a police officer use fabricated evidence to help convict a known criminal? For example, suppose an incumbent mayor is running for reelection and is convinced that his continued leadership is in the best interest of the city. Most likely, all of his staff and political party also support this notion. Under these circumstances, the mayor might hide an indiscretion, fail to be completely frank about his position on a controversial issue, or support a popular proposed law or allocation of funding even if he knows doing so would not be in the best interest of the city and most of the citizens. One effective technique administrators could use is to look at issues through the eyes of different viewpoints, such as the young and the old, minority members, men and women, members of the emergency service’s agency, customers, and elected officials. They should then consider how the people in each of these roles would feel about choices being made for them. There is an idiom, “you need to walk a mile in someone's shoes,” that illustrates the need to understand another person's perceptions, experiences, or motivations before making a judgment for or about them. Administrators must also keep the “Golden Rule” in mind, which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. This can be difficult, because many members of the FES industry have strong beliefs regarding what is needed for emergency operations and safety. FIGURE 11-1 Members and officers need to use truthful statements when justifying their beliefs to the public and elected officials.  © Patricia Marks/ShutterStock. Consider the chief at an incident where a fire death has occurred. The chief is asked by a newspaper reporter, “What could have been done to prevent the death?” The chief could ignore several prevention factors (e.g., smoke alarms and sprinklers) and answer that having four firefighters on each engine would have averted the death. Although this answer may open up a conversation for additional staff funding, which would ultimately lead to better service by the department, it would not be entirely truthful. In the emergency services field, there is often more than one way to prevent a tragic incident and, to tell the whole truth, the chief officer should mention all solutions. Although beliefs regarding service needs may be well founded, members and officers still need to use truthful statements when justifying these beliefs to the public and elected officials FIGURE 11-1. “It’s in Self-Defense” There are situations in which lying seems justifiable when the alternative would be to use physical force. As considered by Bok, “If to use force in self-defense or in defending those at risk of murder is right, why then should a lie in such cases be ruled out?” (Reproduced from Bok, 1999, p. 41). Therefore, when physical force seems like the only means of self-defense, a person could also consider whether lying would accomplish the same objective. One example was discussed previously under “Justification for Lying.” The woman in that example could have used physical force to stop the assailant with the machete, which would have accomplished the same result as the lie she used. “It’s a Miscommunication” Chief officers should be very careful that all communications are received accurately. A person may be accused of lying when instead something actually went wrong within the communication process. This is especially true with verbal communications. A person may have meant to say one thing, but inadvertently said something with a completely different meaning. If an officer conveys the circumstances of a fire and the service’s response to it, but fails to do so clearly, the message may be misunderstood and people may believe that the chief has lied about the event or the department’s response to it. Another type of miscommunication might occur when what the listener has already assumed to be true differs from what is actually said. In this case, the listener might hear what he or she wants to hear. In the case of emergency incidents, prompt communications after a major event helps prevent the public from being informed by gossip and rumor, which might then color their perception of the official story. For example, after a major fire in an apartment complex, occupants complain about the slow fire department response. Several occupants had been forced to jump from upper floors and have sustained serious injuries after waiting a long period of time for the fire department to arrive. The fire department’s on-scene public information officer immediately called the dispatch office to inquire about the response times noted in the computer-aided dispatch system. After checking the system, it is determined that the response actually took place within 4 minutes, clearly an acceptable time range. Once the public information officer repeated the actual response time in a press conference, the complaints stopped. So what happened? This was an afternoon fire and a major incident, with heavy flames and smoke showing from numerous windows. After checking with several witnesses and asking if they called 9-1-1, it is determined that nobody actually called, because everyone thought that someone else would have already called. To correct the misinformation, more than the specific facts were needed. These facts had to be paired to a plausible explanation. This was doubtless a case where quick and accurate communications saved the fire department’s reputation. CASE STUDY Propaganda is a form of lying that is typically used by governments and special interest groups to convince the uninformed audience to support their ideas or policies. For example, a reported horse race in Moscow during the Cold War was arranged between the best U.S. and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) horses. The results of the race found the U.S. horse coming in first, beating the USSR horse. However, for the USSR citizens, the Pravda newspaper reported: The USSR horse came in second and the USA horse came in next to last. In reality a true statement but clearly misleading. This is actually a good example of propaganda. This points out the need to attain more than one source for any information to assure yourself that you are indeed getting the whole truth. In any political situation this is imperative given today’s highly political environment. Many examples of this unethical technique are commonly used every day around the world, including the United States. In totalitarian countries or those countries that do not have at least two independent media sources, the citizens normally hear only one side of a discussion or claim. This is a complex subject well beyond being able to be fully explained in this text. Therefore, if you have an interest in not being deceived by this type of lie, a good read is Nineteen Eighty Four (1984) by George Orwell. Discussion Questions 1. Do FES administrators and their organizations have to be careful not to unintentionally use propaganda? 2. What areas of an FES organization could be prone to misuse of this technique? 3. Would a personnel goal of not believing anything you hear the first time (sometimes two or more) help in being able to identify propaganda? 4. If you take the approach of challenging everything you hear does that help to identify propaganda? Consequences of Lies Denial of the Public’s Freedom to Choose When we talk about taking away someone’s freedom, most people think of a dictatorship or a prison where freedom is removed by physical force. But deceit and lying can also result in the loss of freedom. Furthermore, deceit does not have to be a direct communication of something that is untrue; it can also be the withholding of information that others have a right to know. For example, before the information became public knowledge, a well- known tire manufacturer kept many reports of vehicle rollover crashes involving its tires a secret from the public. Without knowing this information, the public and government safety agencies were unable to choose the safest tires for cars. Now consider a common situation in the fire service. When the general public sees the fire engine responding with its red lights and siren operating, they cannot see how many firefighters are on board; furthermore, they often have no knowledge of how many firefighters are even needed to do a safe and effective job. Even though the minimum number of firefighters on the truck has been established by a national standard (e.g., National Fire Protection Association 1710) and bolstered by OSHA’s safety regulation, the FES administrator can easily mislead the public and elected officials into thinking that whatever level of service is being provided at the local level is appropriate. This may result in fire engines responding with only one, two, or three firefighters, which necessitates more than one fire company for a fire to be safely attacked within a structure. In many cases, this level of service (i.e., number of stations and staffing) is justified by such factors as cost avoidance, unique local situations, or tradition, none of which meets the test of truthfulness. Similarly, members of the public often assume and expect that the response of an ambulance means that advanced life support care is provided. Although there is a distinct difference in the scope of practice between a basic life support emergency medical technician and an advanced life support paramedic, the uniform often looks very similar. Should the service be obligated to clarify if it offers only basic life support service? Just like the engine company that does not publicize it has only two crew members, the ambulance company may not attempt to change what the public perceives about their available level of service. In cases such as these, it may be easy to get caught up in addressing the needs of members or elected and appointed officials and fail to remember the primary goal of serving the public. A chief officer may not attempt a change because the change would be resisted by specific groups or individuals, such as the union, volunteer members, the mayor, or the city council; however, the officer should continue to try, using appropriate preparation, leadership, and courage to gain acceptance. Damage to Professional Reputation With the media’s global reach, everyone has instant access to news about fraud, corruption, and cheating. It seems that the more immoral the act and the more famous the perpetrator, the bigger the story. It is now very difficult for public officials to cover up inappropriate behavior. If administrators have enemies or members in their organizations who simply do not approve of their leadership, impropriety can quickly be turned into ammunition. “Paradoxically, once [the person lying] is no longer trusted, he will be left with greatly decreased power—even though a lie often does bring at least a short-term gain in power over those deceived” (Reproduced from Bok, 1999, p. 26). Some studies indicate that it may take up to 2 years for others to acknowledge any positive changes in behavior made by a person or an organization. As noted by social psychologist Roy Baumeister, “Bad impressions and bad stereotypes are quicker to form and more resistant to disconfirmation than good ones” (Data from Baumeister et al., 2001, p. 232). After an individual or an organization loses the confidence of the public and its own members, it becomes very difficult to ever regain that trust. It should be noted on a personnel basis, the official may suffer harsh consequences. If found out about using lying, deception, and/or withholding important information, they may be fired or suffer other punitive actions. With this also comes issues with loss of income and loss of respect from family members, colleagues, and friends. It can be a nightmare for the individual and is not worth the chance of being exposed. Moral Obligations of Public Roles There is no reason to think that individuals in public roles are exempt from traditional ethical and moral requirements, or that the end always justifies the means. The person who accepts the position of chief officer of an FES department or EMS organization has a special obligation to the public, and to the organization’s members and elected officials. The FES or EMS chief officer is directly responsible for the service the public receives and for the safety of the members. Also, in many cases, the chief officer is among the few who have the technical expertise to judge the adequacy of the service provided. Right or wrong, the officer has the power to fool the public and politicians into believing the organization is providing great service when in fact the organization and its members may not be operating at 100% effort and efficiency. For example, a common judgment used to assess their FES organization adequacy by the public is the condition, age, and cleanliness of the apparatus. In reality, it would be better to have an old (although functional) apparatus with a well-trained and physically capable team of emergency responders. The critical element to efficient safe outcomes of emergencies is predominately the members. Duty to Obey There are many times during a chief officer’s career in government when the officer feels pulled in several directions by superiors, such as a mayor or city administrator. People entering authoritarian systems might no longer view themselves as acting for their own purposes, but acting rather as agents for executing the orders of another person. “[A]dministrators typically work in environments where the presumption of the obligation to obey is powerful—so powerful that, in an extreme case, the administrative environment may promote a willingness on the part of officials to give up all sense of personal responsibility” (Data from Garvey, 1996, p. 328). Chief officers must be careful in these situations, because they can end up involved in a civil or criminal action. To offset this tendency, number 4 of the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiative states “All firefighters must be empowered to stop unsafe practices.” The normal behavior of firefighters is to obey all orders without question. A major goal of recruit training is to teach a firefighter to be capable of timely, effectively, and efficiently functioning at emergencies. They should also be educated in the practice of recognizing unsafe situations and orders that must be called out. This is sometimes characterized as the “culture” that must be identified so the individual can have the courage to resist the duty to obey when necessary. Although obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior for many public officials, it is important to remember that blind obedience is a powerful force that can override training in ethics, common sense, and moral conduct. For example, the chief officer receives a direct order from the mayor to eliminate all overtime. The officer knows that overtime is needed to maintain minimum staffing levels, but he obeys the order without a fight, possibly fearing loss of his job. A leader of an FES department or EMS organization must find a way to stay independent by nurturing a relationship with superiors that allows for open, honest communication. Although most of this frank communication must take place in private, the chief officer should be able to approach his or her superior in any setting without the fear of reprisals. Unions, volunteer organizations, and business owners have all used their influence over the years to change or attempt to change fire- and EMS-related public policy. These groups were specifically created to look out for the best interest of their members. Administrators need to remember their obligation to the public because many of the groups attempting to influence the behavior or policies of the organization have their own personal self-serving agendas. Officers must always try to do what is ethically right, using some of the techniques and suggestions in this chapter as a guideline. Fairness Among Members Fairness is equated by many as being the “right” or ethical thing to do. This is not always achievable, but when possible, chief officers should treat all members equally and fairly FIGURE 11-2. Every person should have an equal opportunity to succeed in accordance with his or her abilities and hard work. FIGURE 11-2 Absolute balanced justice is not always achievable in organizations because it is applied by people who are not perfect, but it should be the goal strived for by administrators. © Aerial Mike/Shutterstock. For example, in any FES organization, some members perform at a higher job performance level than their peers. A chief officer could easily start treating these few outstanding workers better than their peers. However, the officer should remember that it takes a team of players to win the game. All players contribute to the best of their ability if they are properly motivated. The job of a leader is to get all members to operate near their maximum performance level, whatever that level may be.  Only in those cases where an member’s behavior is unacceptable should a different treatment be administered. In these cases, the other members are watching, and if they see an employee getting away with substandard performance, some will lower their own performance levels. Everything a chief officer says or does is a signal to all members of what to expect in relation to job performance. If the officer allows a few self-motivated overachievers to carry the bulk of the work or does not discipline those not meeting minimum performance standards, that officer is not treating members impartially or fairly. Ethical Tests The following is a list of methods to consider when evaluating an ethical dilemma: Assume the public is in the room and has adequate knowledge to review and discuss the issue (especially if the decision must be made secretly, a discussion using this assumption provides needed input). Follow the Golden Rule: treat others as you would want them to treat you. Consider the viewpoint of everyone who will be affected: age, gender, sexuality, race, religion, income, disability, ethnicity, etc. Examine the validity of the “avoiding harm” and “greater truth” rational. For example, “Recently, medical experts argued that we need to lock down the populous to reduce transmission of a virus.” Other scientific, psychologist, and economic experts disagreed because of the greater harm to the economy and peoples’ psychology. This debate should have been in the public and any adverse consequences  (especially unintended) fully evaluated. Be cautious in these debates of occasionally invalid justifications. Investigate from top to bottom the “produces greater benefit” justification. Be cautious of the “means are justified by the end.” This is almost always false. The means must be ethical. Consider the fairness of the decision. In addition to the considerations listed above, keep in mind the following quote from Mark Twain: “When in doubt, tell the truth. It will confound your enemies and astound your friends” (Data from Twain, 1906). Wrap-Up CHAPTER SUMMARY What does ethical behavior involve? Why do people lie? Are there justifications for lying? Are there consequences for lying? Is there a special duty to be honest for public officials?  KEY TERMS Code of ethics Ethical codes are adopted by organizations to assist members in understanding the difference between right and wrong and in applying that understanding to their administration actions. Ethics A principle of right or good conduct or a system of moral principles/values. Fairness Treating people or ideas equally or in a way that is right or reasonable. However, this is a very subjective concept and can sometimes be clarified by an ethical evaluation of the person or idea by considering how one ought to act, morally. One father explained to his children, who wanted to be fairly judged (the “that’s not fair” declaration), that if life were fair to him, he would have won the lotto several times. Life is not always fair but administrators should do all they can to be as fair as possible in their supervisory responsibilities. Lying Deliberately presenting a false statement or action as true or hiding factual information with the intent to deceive. Obedience The act or an instance of obeying; dutiful or submissive behavior such as following orders of a supervisor at the scene of an emergency. Oversight Review by entities such as the government or professional organizations to regulate ethical behavior. Personal ethics May include complying with laws and societal norms, telling the truth, showing concern for others’ well-being, and respecting others’ freedom and independence. Professional ethics May include complying with company policies and procedures, telling the truth to the public and elected officials, protecting confidentiality, and ensuring the safety of FES workers and the public. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Answer each question posed in Table 11-1 according to your own moral and ethical code, and the information gleaned from this chapter. 2. Compare and contrast personal and professional ethics, and provide at least two examples of each. Do you think one is more important than the other? 3. Can you think of any other justifications for lying not covered in this chapter? Describe a scenario in which this justification could be used by a hypothetical unethical member of the FES, and describe the potential effects for the department or organization. 4. Do you expect the superior officials or politicians to be ethical in all their actions? List two examples of individuals that you think may have had ulterior motives other than being truthful in their actions. 5. List three motives people may have to act other than ethically in administrative responsibilities. CHAPTER ACTIVITY #1: AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS A fire chief is scheduled to testify at a city supervisor’s workshop regarding a proposed fire code amendment requiring installation of automatic sprinklers in all newly constructed parking garages. An automobile fire in a parking garage several months ago prompted this proposed fire code amendment. Fire companies had a difficult time advancing hose lines to the area of the parking garage where the fire was and, subsequently, the fire spread to cars on each side of the original fire. After the fire was out, a reporter from a local newspaper interviewed the chief and asked why the fire companies seemed to have so much trouble putting out the fire. Without much thought, the chief pronounced that if a sprinkler system had been installed in the parking garage, the fire would have been contained with smaller property loss. Sometime later, the chief received a report from a battalion chief indicating that the fire company had been very slow in advancing the hose line at the fire. The battalion chief then went on to recommend that the department should institute a “back to basics” program. The battalion chief also noted that the number of structural fires in the city was down, causing the proficiency of the companies to diminish. In addition, while researching his testimony for the city supervisor’s workshop, the chief discovered that the model building codes did not require sprinklers in garages if there were appropriate exterior openings on each level. The chief also discovered articles in fire service publications based on real-life experience and controlled burns where valid cost- benefit justification for sprinklers could not be established. The fire chief had been in his present job for several years and had a reputation as a very knowledgeable leader. In other presentations and appearances before public hearings, the chief had gained a lot of support for the department’s opinions, goals, and ideas. Discussion Questions 1. Make a list of options the chief might choose based on his situation and explain the ethical considerations that each option entails. 2. Would a full public apology to the city council along with requesting the code change be rejected be appropriate for the chief? 3. Name three specific skills that would be needed to extinguish the car fire in a garage. CHAPTER ACTIVITY #2: CALL RESPONSE Your FES agency has just experienced a 45% increase in emergency responses after implementing a new policy that requires an engine company to respond to all calls for medical assistance, not just life- threatening medical calls. Discussion Questions  1. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, are the citizens getting more for their tax dollars under the new policy? 2. How would you defend the following situation: A first due engine company was slow to respond to a structural fire where a 5-year-old girl died. At that time, the first due engine was busy at a medical call scene where a 45-year-old construction worker had broken his arm. After providing first aid and splinting the arm, they were waiting for the arrival of a transport ambulance. Take into account all ethical considerations when answering a question from the grieving parents; What took you so long to get to our house? 3. With this new activity level, the officers of your engine companies are now reporting that they are not able to complete their in-service fire prevention inspections and physical fitness programs. How might this situation affect your organization’s ability to meet its goal for quality service to the public? 4. Would you consider a change in response policy that required an engine company response only in those truly life-threatening emergencies (e.g., heart attacks, serious trauma, trouble breathing) to reduce the call volume? CHAPTER ACTIVITY #3: RIGHT OR WRONG Charlie is a 54-year-old homeless man with coronary artery disease. He calls 9-1-1 almost every day, especially in the winter when he is looking for a warm meal and a dry bed. Every time the ambulance crew serving the primary service area in which Charlie lives transports him to the busy county hospital, they know that they will wait at least 20–30 minutes for a bed. The crew also knows that they are going to get grief from the emergency department staff when they arrive with Charlie. On a particularly busy, rainy day, the crew finds Charlie at a telephone booth with the usual complaint of chest pain. Jack, the senior medic, tells Charlie this is a bad day to be fooling around and that the emergency department is full. Charlie says he is hungry and agrees to sign an Against Medical Advice form if Jack gives him $20 for food. George, the new intern at the hospital emergency department, questions whether they should have transported as the patient requested or at least done an assessment. Jack replies, “It’s no different than any other day. The guy is just a system abuser.” Two hours later another crew responds to find Charlie in cardiac arrest. He cannot be resuscitated. When the family finds out a crew had seen him earlier and did not treat or transport, they file a lawsuit. Discussion Questions 1. Was Jack’s decision to talk Charlie out of transport ethical? 2. Should the intern have reported his discomfort to a supervisor? 3. Can Jack and his crew be liable for patient abandonment even with a patient signature?