On the media-related side of things, the first issue is the fact that the Academy of Tobacco Studies is not fulfilling its moral obligation and societal responsibility to inform the public of the links between tobacco and health. It would seem that Nick Naylor is erring on the side of dishonesty, especially when we consider that he hires a German researcher to disprove (or at the very least cast doubt) on the conclusiveness of any scientific research that connects ill health and cancer by producing their own results. This is a glaring ethics dilemma that is either condoned or condemned depending on which philosophical approach we subscribe to, and even then the issues are still complicated. For example, if one considers the Utilitarianism philosophical approach, then the Academy should choose the decision that achieves the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Arguably, Nick Naylor's current approach is doing the greatest amount of good for those involved in the tobacco industry, either as farmers etc. Conversely, if he were to revise his approach, it would serve the greatest good for all the tobacco users (who for the most part, already know that tobacco use can have adverse effects on their health).
Senator Finisterre, the main anti-smoking proponent in the movie is trying to censor the tobacco industry by introducing a bill that would require all cigarette packs to be labeled "poison".
This approach can be seen as unconstitutional because the First Amendment protects free speech. However, if one considers the context that many people are dying from cigarette use, one can argue that it is the moral responsibility of the tobacco companies to label their packs as "poison". It would appear then, that the Surgeon General's warning that is required to appear on ALL cigarette products is a "Golden Mean" philosophical approach to the issue because it is at the mid-point between the two extremes; one extreme being the absence of any label at all, the other being a label that identifies the pack as poison.
Another media-related ethics issue is Nick Naylor's relationship Heather Holloway, the journalist who ends up exposing the information Nick gives her about the tobacco industry, their attempts at product placement, and their attempts to stifle any negative press. He did so under the assumption that it was off the record. It is arguable that she used surreptitious newsgathering methods to acquire her story of significant public importance, yet she seemed to lose her job (possibly her license) for doing so. This is hard to comprehend when institutions like the SPJ and RTNDA condone the usage of such tactics. One can hardly say that Nick Naylor would have disclosed so many details of his industry and it's inner workings to her had the relationship not involved any sex, yet this was enough to warrant her losing her job. Nick Naylor neglected his professional moral obligation to his financial supporters, his employer and professional colleagues by divulging this information. It can also be argued that she acted in an unprofessional manner by neglecting hers. This is yet another illustration of the complexity of the ethical dilemmas.
The movie pits several ethical dilemmas against each other. Product placement of cigarettes itself is a hotbed of contention when it comes to ethics. On one hand, Nick Naylor is fulfilling his professional responsibility to promote the company's best product, and on the other hand, he can be seen as neglecting his societal and moral responsibility to not market cigarettes to people in the context of the world where many are dying from cigarette use. Nick Naylor suffers the burden of professional responsibility versus moral and societal responsibility several times in the movie. Senator Finisterre's desire to use a person dying from cancer to garner public contempt for the tobacco industry and subsequently consent for his bill can also be considered unethical.
Most of these issues are resolved by the end of the movie. The issue of personal responsibility is brought to bear when Nick Naylor is on trial. He states that the companies should be allowed to market to everyone (kids included), but that parents should be responsible enough for their kids upbringing to inform them of what is good and bad for their health. The right to freedom of speech without censorship is upheld when the bill Senator Finisterre prescribes is not adopted.
Hundreds of years of history tell us of tobacco use in the world from cigarettes to cigars to pipes to chewing tobacco. Smoking was once a luxury, farming tobacco was considered a reputable profession. In the last fifty years, we’ve become more aware of the health hazards of smoking. Smoking has also become a multi-billion dollar per year business. It seems today that smoking is an epidemic and out of control. We see the ads everywhere. They are sold everywhere. Troops in the Middle East are even paying upwards of $10 for a pack of cigarettes.(http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=29741) Last year alone 378 billion cigarettes were sold in the United States. Ironically, that’s the lowest yearly cigarette sales figure since 1951. Why is that? Are we actually beginning to realize what cigarettes are doing to our health?
We can speculate many causes for the decrease in cigarette sales for 2006. One of these reasons may be the trend in our nation, and others, to ban smoking in public places. (http://www.smokefreeworld.com/usa.shtml) A majority of our nation’s states have instituted some form of smoking ban in the recent years. Even the UK banned smoking in most public places this past July. Many sources conclude that these smoking bans will lead to people quitting smoking. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=366048&in_page_id=1774) In recent years, cigarette vending machines have even been removed from most public places so that teens cannot access them.
Others reasons for people to quit smoking are benefits from their employer. This lowers health care costs benefiting both the employer and the employee. Some believe the trend in quitting is due to the availability and many options of drugs and products for smoking cessation. There are also government funded and non-profit organizations that are dedicated to educating and advising people when they are trying to quit. All in all, people are getting fed up with the tobacco industry as a whole. More and more people are becoming ill and dying from tobacco related diseases. Most of all, people are becoming more aware of the amount of cigarette advertising is directed towards their kids.
This film was written not to prove smoking was a positive impact on society or a negative impact on society, but to prove that it is an issue in today’s society. This was the directors’ intension from the beginning. In reference to, (2006, October 3). Thank You for Smoking [DVD]. Fox Searchlight Pictures. Event occurs at Special Features, the director Jason Reitman talks about his intensions for the film. He describes the film as a bias to both sides, which neither favor one side or the other.
At the time this movie was filmed many issues regarding smoking were present in modern day society. In 1995 California AB13, prohibiting smoking in enclosed workplaces, took effect http://www.trdrp.org. In addition, one of the nation's toughest anti-smoking laws took effect on April 10, 1995. In New York City a law was passed that was designed to eliminate smoking in most enclosed public places around the city (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n16_v29/ai_16852234). In some ways it was a coincidence that this movie was released during the year these smoking laws were put into effect, but neither the movie nor the laws prompted the release of the film.
There have been many other films released that have challenged the opinions of society. Many of these movies fall under the famous director known as Michael Moore. Michael Moore has directed films like Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. Both movies raised issues regarding society after the attack on 9/11, and the American health care system. Moves like these and “Thank You For Smoking,” have created discussion among the movie business. They continue to keep society aware of issues regarding everyday life. “Thank You For Smoking” is a wonderful film and will be watched for many years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment