Case 26

CASE 26

1. The ethical pressure and dilemmas of the BP Oil spill stem from the severity of the situation and long term impact of this disaster. From a society aspect to the environmental hazards, everybody has been, and will be affected long term. The ethical issues in this case is the compensation to people who have suffered mental illness problems i.e. PTSD due to this spill. The determination of such claims, bogus or not have to be judged accordingly. The ideology of this being a long term psychological event without physical harm stirs opinions. The pressure of claiming that “you have to draw a line somewhere” becomes the topic of debate thus requiring the ultimate ethical decision making.

2. Stakeholders of the BP Oil spill are BP, Federal and State Government, Environmental agencies and or groups. Even the people who live off the land like fisherman. All impacted in different ways and different scales. Government officials have to determine fines, consequences and future of the impacted population. BP has to determine how to clean up the situation and keep their image and business from plummeting. Fishermen in turn have to deal with the effect economically. Their livelihood lies in limbo with no product, income and some cases sense of purpose. All of these stakeholder variables produce a whole ethical dilemma.

3. I do agree that a line needs to be drawn. The only thing I would use to support that is “we’ll be getting millions of claims from people watching television.” People would undoubtedly take advantage of the opportunity, which would neglect the credible claims. But there has to be a conscious effort to keeping claims consistent and credible.

4. I wholeheartedly disagree with Feinbergs expectation that there be a signature physical injury. I don’t think he’s in the position to make that assessment either. For example, we can do a study with Feinberg as our subject; we can completely destroy and take away all that he knows in his life without laying a finger on him. This in turn could prove our point, that emotional distress and trauma can be more damaging and unable to heal compared to any physical damage. They can be different entities.

5. No I do not believe his assessment of the place of mental health should apply to states and municipalities. They are competent enough and have the resources to provide the necessary depth to make their own assessment. They have to right to hear Feinberg our and respect his assessment.

6. If I were responsible for the validity of claims, physical or emotionally id surround myself with the proper resources. I’d strongly consider bringing in professional psychiatrists. I would also assemble a counseling team that would asses every party affected. Even reaching out to folks who aren’t able to make claims and who need assistance in whatever occurrence. My drive and strength of reason for my actions would be the dignity and fortitude to protect the livelihood and rights of the people, community, and environment affected. I would drive the idea to not only recover from this disaster but learn educate and become better because of it.