Karen Handel was appointed vice-president of the Susan G. Komen foundation in April 2011. Cliff Stearns (R, Florida) begins investigation into Planned Parenthood (October?). Komen board votes do discontinue grant funding of any organization under investigation by the government. Planned Parenthood informed in December that Komen would no longer fund 17 out of 19 PP affiliates. Mollie Williams resigns as Managing Director of community health programs (December). AP breaks story on Jan 31st, outpouring of support for Planned Parenthood (including over $400,000 in donations) leads to reversal of decision (February 3rd). The uproar caused by Planned Parenthood supporters led Susan G. Komen to reallocate funds to the organization.
ETHICAL ISSUES in Question?
Alternative Courses of Action?
Projecting Probable Consequences?
ETHICAL ISSUES in Question?
Alternative Courses of Action?
Projecting Probable Consequences?
Jessie and the Boys
ReplyDelete--Ethical Issues in Question--
1. If Susan G. Komen’s decision was motivated by anything outside the betterment of their mission (end goal being breast health) then their decision was unethical.
2. Did Planned Parenthood act ethically in its response to the cutting of ties by the Susan G. Komen Foundation?
--Alternative Courses of Action--
1. Susan G. Komen—don’t cut funding in the first place
2. Enter into dialogue before funding gets pulled
3. Planned Parenthood could have improved upon their reporting processes for fund allocation.
4. Planned Parenthood—not attack Susan G. Komen when funds were taken away/don’t hurt those who help you.
--Projecting Possible Consequences--
1. Continued backlash from some constituents. Possible repercussions and compromising of values down the road.
2. Continued relationship between the two parties. Amicable resolution and solutions to troublesome issues.
3. Susan G. Komen wouldn’t have to question what their funds are truly being used for.
4. The funding would have still been taken away, but there would have been less negative views towards each party involved.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShare the Air
ReplyDeleteEthical Issues at hand:
• Where is the money going? How does it affect each organization?
• Komen has a loyalty to their donors, but also to all women who need care.
• Planned Parenthood has a loyalty to all their patients equally and an obligation to try and get as many donations as possible.
• Fundraising vs. Care
Alternative courses of action:
• Communicate more effectively privately before the decision goes public. Each organization should consider:
Komen: Reject hierarchy, encourage participatory decision making, transparency, neutrality, internal communication audit. Reinforce core purpose-Women’s health; how do we support women without compromising organizational values?
Planned Parenthood: Separation from the “Abortion” stigma…how do they market themselves differently? The organization needs to expand its marketing message to increase awareness to the variety of social services that they provide.
Some additional ideas for moving forward may include:
•The Komen foundation could allow for "donation designation" on the donation form, which would allow donors to "opt out" of having their funds go toward Planning Parenthood. In this way, they acknowledge that some of their donors may not agree with some of the service provided by Planned Parenthood and therefore, could feel comfort that their fund would not go to that organization.
•It appears that the values and culture of Komen foundation's board is disconnected from that of the organization itself. They would benefit by first taking an organizational development approach to this disconnect before reaching out to Planned Parenthood to heal the relationship.
Probable Consequences:
• A better relationship between the two companies and a better public understanding about how each organization helps women.
Ryan and the Ladies
ReplyDeleteEthical Issues:
1. The controversy about abortion
2. Political motivations
3. Ethics of care – who gets to decide who receives care
Alternative Courses of Action:
1. Private discussion of decision prior to public call for response.
2. Susan G. Komen establishes free, independent health clinics for breast cancer screenings.
3. Rebrand Planned Parenthood image by separating activities in family planning from general reproductive health services.
Probable Consequences:
1. Ideally, the two parties come to a mutually agreeable solution. More likely, either Susan G. Komen would see this action as a directed threat and take more public action on their own or refuse to work with Planned Parenthood. Failed talks would prompt Planned Parenthood to use a similar public strategy to develop support and force Komen to make a public decision.
2. Susan G. Komen supporters would know that their donations would fund breast cancer screenings alone and women who use breast health services at organizations like Planned Parenthood would have a comparable option. This could lead to a competitive relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood. Also, Komen would need to dedicate funds to administrative costs and overhead of establishing and running clinics.
3. Susan G. Komen could continue their partnership with Planned Parenthood. More money would be required for administrative expenses in this scenario, however, reducing funds available to provide their core services. Also, there is no guarantee that separating activities would appease donors that take ethical issues with Planned Parenthood’s mission, values, and services provided.
Group V
ReplyDeleteEthic Issues
1. Competing and conflicting ethical values/principals
2. Conflicting loyalties
Mission (womens breast cancer prevention) vs Funding (compromising one donor base for $$$ one)
Alternative Courses of Action
1. SGK could have engaged PP in a discussion b/f cutting the funds
2. PP could gave responded to cutting of funds by engaging in conversation with SBK instead of an immediate public attack once news was leaked to AP. Retalitory ethics were used damaging SBK public imagine where both organizations are focused on achieving the same goals.
Probable Consequences
1. Had PP consented to a gracious understanding that losing the funding was for the greater good of the overall mission, both organizations could have announced publically and PP would have reinforced its overall primary focus on every decision being about saving women's rights and funding probably would have increased. They could recoup the lost funds and gained favorable press. SGK would realign to their mission statement which is about breast cancer screening (not abortion) and appease their donor base. This would have gone a long way to appease their inner ranks how would outraged at the decision. PP acceptance would help with that.
2. SGK would have avoided the PR nightmare and PP would retain its funding if SGK decided to maintain the grant. If SGK did not, then PP could have responded (not initiated the first strike in response to the AP article) with a more gentle message that said while they understand the pressure SGK is understand (who better), they do not have the luxury with their fight to pick and choose donors. Make it seem almost like class warfare with PP as the underdog.
Group:Potpourri
ReplyDeleteEthical issues:
1. Actions not in sync with their mission statement (Komen foundation)
2. Why did the Komen foundation bring a person with a political agenda ( to eliminate Planned Parenthood) into the management?
3. Violation of Utilitarian principle
4. Lack of integrity
Alternate solutions:
1. Komen could have stated they were dropping Planned Parenthood because they oppose abortion and also they oppose laws that give women the right to choose abortion.
2. After the havoc was created, the public statements given by board members, CEO and other employees were inconsistent which created doubt. Before reaching out to the media, they should have had a meeting or conversation on how they would like to project themselves.
3. Susan G Komen foundation should have spoken candidly to Planned Parenthood about their problems/issues and have an honest dialogue and explain their planned action and both parties should have analyzed the possible outcomes and then decide what would be best for the prosperity of both the organizations and if need be, part ways with good terms.
4. Komen could have dropped Planned Parenthood because they were under investigation by congress and stuck with the decision.
Probable consequences:
1. They would have still had many people who reacted negatively to this policy, but they would have had an ethically driven reason behind their breaking of the partnership.
2. At least, the public would have confidence and trust in the management. People would not have started assuming what might have happened since there is data inconsistency.
3. Both companies would come to an understanding and this matter would not have been publicized. The two companies would part ways amicably; or make some arrangements for funding in a different way. There might be a possibility for a future collaboration.
4. This would lead to the reaction they received. They would have still had many people who reacted negatively to this policy, but they would have had an ethically driven reason behind their breaking of the partnership.
I'm an outsider to this course, but the case seems incomplete relative to the facts that we know now. A good many press accounts seem to corroborate that Nancy Brinker was not telling the truth in public when she explained the rationale and the process behind Komen's change in policy. In an interview with Andrea Mitchell, she stated that VP Karen Handel (a former Republican candidate who opposed Planned Parenthood) had nothing to do with the decision to curtail new grants to PP. That was almost definitely a lie.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I even see this case as an ethical dilemma, but rather an object lesson in what can happen when one fails to tell the truth.