Core Principle Promoting healthy and fair competition among professionals preserves an ethical climate while fostering a robust business environment.
These four distinctive features provide public health ethics with itsbasic structure and orientation. Under the first rubric, importantquestions arise with regard to the scope of public health: who is the“public?” The usual assumption is that the public is adiscrete unit that corresponds with state boundaries: a singlecountry's population. But in a global world, that assumption is notalways plausible for various reasons. Communicable diseases have a wayof ignoring national boundaries, and preventive measures in onecountry may be futile if other countries do not followsuit. Moreover,the statist focus is not always readily justifiable: insofar asdiseases cross borders, should public health interventions do thesame? Further questions about justice and equity across borders alsoarise: do wealthier countries and wealthier individuals haveobligations to attend to the public health of less fortunate others?These questions will be discussed further in section IV, below.
Against the backdrop of these two normative approaches, this paperproceeds as follows: Section 1 lays out some of the distinctivechallenges of public health ethics. Section 2 discusses differentjustifications for public health interventions, including the role ofpaternalism and how it bears on the permissibility of public healthinterventions. Also discussed in Section 2 are broader questions ofdemocratic legitimacy. Section 3 focuses on questions of justice andfairness in public health ethics. Finally, Section 4 discusses globaljustice as it intersects with public health. Overall, this entrystrives to provide a general lay of the land of the central issuesthat drive public health ethics, with a particular focus on questionsof justice and fairness.
One person might not see anything wrong with exaggerating a news release for a new product, while another might consider such an act to be dishonest.Studies have been done which categorize public relations practitioners as being either more ethical or less ethical; the factors that have been researched and that provided conclusive evidence include age, years of experience, gender, and individual moral values.
It was also reported that women practiced unethical behavior less often than men (Pratt, "Perceptions," 153). In addition to incongruous ethical standards, several other factors serve as possible reasons for the lack of values.
Ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA member. We view the Member Code of Ethics as a model for other professions, organizations, and professionals.
The value of member reputation depends upon the ethical conduct of everyone affiliated with the Public Relations Society of America. Each of us sets an example for each other – as well as other professionals – by our pursuit of excellence with powerful standards of performance, professionalism, and ethical conduct.
This statement presents the core values of PRSA members and, more broadly, of the public relations profession. These values provide the foundation for the Member Code of Ethics and set the industry standard for the professional practice of public relations. These values are the fundamental beliefs that guide our behaviors and decision-making process. We believe our professional values are vital to the integrity of the profession as a whole.
PRSA is aware of the need to recognize and acknowledge ethical issues as they arise, which is among the reasons that the PRSA Board of Ethics and Professional Standards (BEPS) was created. BEPS upholds and amends, when necessary, the PRSA Code of Ethics.
The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is committed to ethical practices. The level of public trust PRSA members seek, as we serve the public good, means we have taken on a special obligation to operate ethically.
The PRSA Code of Ethics sets out principles and guidelines that uphold the core values of the ethical practice of public relations, including advocacy, honesty, loyalty, professional development and objectivity.
Public health's commitment to prevention carries with it particularmoral challenges. Eliminating or mitigating a harm that already existsis sometimes viewed as being of greater moral importance - or simplyas more immediately motivating action - than long-term strategies toprevent a harm from materializing. Although in recent years there isarguably more emphasis on prevention in health policy, preventivepublic health interventions continue to receive less funding andpublic support than medical treatments. For example, despite theincreasing focus on wellness in public policy and theworkplace, bothpolicy makers and the public still tend to place a higher priority onensuring that heart patients have access to surgery and medicationsthan on programs to prevent heart disease through diet andexercise. Another factor that can result in prioritizing cures overprevention is that although the costs and burdens of preventiveinterventions occur largely in the present, the benefits of successfulpreventive interventions often occur in the future, and usually onlyto some members of the population whose identities cannot be predictedin advance and whose numbers can only be estimatedprobabilistically. Thus, prevention policies and programsraise questions about how we should think about statistical andunidentified lives and persons, and whether health gains in the futureshould be treated as worth less than health gains in the present. Insome cases, the beneficiaries of preventive interventions are membersof future generations, complicating the moral picture evenfurther.
Other ideas include rewarding and publicizing good conduct, developing a universally-honored code of ethics, and governmentally regulating the licensing of public relations practitioners.