Whistle-Blowing in Accounting

Please let me know which topic you choose from the attached options. I need to ok the choice before you start working on it.
Please choose as many sources as you see fit in accordance with the topic and research paper.
Instructions and additional material are attached.
Thx!

Philosophy Research Paper:

Weight: 30% of your final mark

Length: 2500 ±200 words

Due: After completing Unit 9 (approximately 22 weeks into the course)

Instructions

1. You may choose one of the essay topics given in the Essay Topics for Assignment 2 link on the course home page, or you may write on a topic of your own creation. If you decide to write on your own topic, ensure that it involves an ethically controversial issue in professional ethics that pertains to a particular type of professional. An ethically controversial subject is one in which others can reasonably disagree on how the issue should be resolved. Before writing on a topic of your own creation, contact your tutor to discuss whether it is appropriate for this assignment. You are not permitted to write on the same ethical issue for your paper topic as you did for Assignment 1. So, for example if you chose to do an analysis on Case 2, which involves breaching confidentiality, you are not permitted to write on a paper topic that covers confidentiality.
2. Research your topic in the broader philosophical literature, and write a critical paper aiming to resolve the issue posed by considering a range of possible positions on the issue. In your analysis, you will defend and develop your argument(s) in support of a position on the issue by considering any relevant considerations that have bearing on determining the best position from an ethical point of view. Further, you will provide arguments and reasons that also show why the positions that you reject are less satisfactory from an ethical perspective than the position you defend. The argument(s) and reasons of your analysis will include considerations regarding relevant factual claims, ethical values and principles, as well as ethically significant consequences or implications of a position. Again, as with the case study analysis, you are strongly encouraged to make use of ethical theories if applicable to the analysis, but this is not necessary. You will incorporate and properly document your research material in the paper, as appropriate, which should demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the issues in the philosophical literature surrounding that topic. The goal of this assignment is to defend the most ethically satisfactory position on your chosen issue as well as showing why the alternative positions are ethically less satisfactory. The article in Unit 5 by Kenneth Kipnis, “A Defense of Unqualified Medical Confidentiality” is an excellent example of philosophical method insofar as the author presents his own arguments in support of his conclusion, raises possible objections to it, and then provides a rebuttal against the objections in support of his conclusion. Refer to the guidelines for “Writing Philosophy Research Papers” in the Course Information as you work through the stages of completing this assignment.
3. Your paper will be graded, in part, on how well you incorporate and properly document your research. The overall organizational structure or the mechanics of your writing will be based on the Grading Policy section in the Course Information. Your tutor will use the General Grading Matrix to determine how, for better or for worse, your organization and mechanics affect your grade.

1. Critically discuss whether and how professional ethics is distinct from ordinary ethics, using two different professions as the basis for your discussion. For each of the two professions you choose, provide at least one example of a situation where, arguably, professional duties would require a violation of ordinary morality. For each situation, defend a position on whether or not professional duties and obligations should take priority over ordinary duties and obligations or vice versa.
2. Choose a profession other than engineering, and critically discuss whether it is ever morally permissible and/or morally obligatory for a professional to blow the whistle in the case of moral wrong doing. Under what conditions and what kind of actions might warrant whistle blowing?
3. Critically discuss David Thomasma’s position that physicians may be justified in withholding the truth from patients, which he presents in “Telling the Truth to Patients: A Clinical Ethics Exploration.” What other profession do you think that his argument is applicable to and why?
4. Critically discuss Benjamin Freedman’s arguments in support of the three standards for informed consent outlined in “A Moral Theory of Informed Consent.” Do you agree with these standards and the reasoning supporting them? If yes, explain why you think his arguments are successful and provide additional argumentation in support of his position. If not, explain why you think his arguments are unsuccessful and what objections might be made or opposing arguments that might be offered. Does the example of prisoners and medical experimentation provide a special case for the standards of informed consent and reasoning supporting it or do his standards and arguments apply equally to more ordinary medical circumstances where informed consent is required?
5. Critically discuss at least two different concepts of “objectivity” as it applies to journalism and the challenges that it poses for the practice of journalism. Do you think journalistic objectivity (of some form or another) is crucial to the integrity of journalism as a profession? Explain and defend your answer.
6. Critically compare situations in which lawyers and physicians may wish to withhold their services. Do you believe that physicians and lawyers are professionally and morally obligated to provide their services to those in need? In what way are these professions/professionals similar and different in this regard?
7. In Unit 5, Ethics & Medicine, and Unit 7, Ethics & Law, the concepts of confidentiality and informed consent, as well as arguments surrounding whether breaches of confidentiality are justifiable were examined. Critically discuss the similarities and differences between the reasons for breaching confidentiality in law and in medicine and the consequences of telling the clients/patients that confidentiality is limited.
8. The practices of accounting and finance professionals are governed by some strict laws and professional guidelines, such as Canada’s Bill 198 and the United States’ Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as GAAP, yet there remains a question of whether these regulations are sufficient in terms of promoting moral behaviour and preventing immoral behaviour. Critically discuss the extent to which these regulations are sufficient and what other measures, if any, should be taken to promote morally good behaviour or prevent morally bad behaviour within these professional domains. Aim to convince your reader of your position on whether or not something else should be done and, if so, what.