Dr. Wigand is a former scientist. He has just been fired from his job at a tobacco company, Brown and Williams. Even though he has been fired it is in his contract to keep the companies confidentiality. Meaning if anyone is to ask him about the company he is to keep his word and not say anything. Mr. Bergman, a producer for the show 60 Minutes, has confronted Dr. Wigand about the company. Is it ethical for Wigand to tell Bergman about the company? Should he tell them the truth? Was it ethical for Bergman to confront Wigand about the company and manipulate him to tell the truth? In this paper I will tell my opinion on all the ethical issues throughout this movie.
I think it was ethical for Dr. Wigand to violate his confidentiality agreement, even though he put his family’s life and health and his life at risk. By breaching the agreement Wigand lost his severance package and his health plan. It got the truth out about what the company is doing to cigarettes, and how it will affect the people’s health. Wigand agreed to tell the truth during a court hearing so that it was mandatory for him to tell the truth and it wasn’t technically wrong for him to do it. By doing this he told the nation of the health risks of smoking tobacco.
I thought it was not ethical for Mr. Bergman to pursue Wigand as an interviewee. I think Bergman figured out that Wigand was holding something back and that he must have had something to tell, so Bergman manipulated him into telling the truth about the company. Bergman had to weigh the safety of Wigand’s life with his own job. He clearly wanted to keep Wigand safe during the movie, but he still somehow got the truth out of him. I don’t think Mr. Bergman should have approached the situation the way he did.
I think it was not ethical at all, for 60 minutes to not show the tape on their show. They manipulated Wigand, they told him that if he did this they would show it on air. Wigand violated his...