Ethics and the Military as Globalism Becomes

Ethics and the Military

As globalism becomes more of a reality, and as various developing countries increase the amount of interaction they do with developed countries, many cultural issues arise. Doing business is not the same worldwide, and as citizens of a global village, we must realize that there are different cultural norms and behaviors that are acceptable in some countries, unacceptable in others, and even expected in some. In the same manner, there are a number of ethical commonalities that businesses and the military share, particularly in the global world. International companies and the military are being pressurized by different groups of people, mainly from their stakeholders, regarding social and ethical issues. Issues revolving around what the United States, Canadian, British and Australian governments call moral issues, in some countries are part of regular actions, yet cause us to ask: "Is it moral or not, when trading in a foreign country, to participate in immoral actions to survive"? Morality is typically the standard that a group has about what is right and wrong -- good and evil -- permissible or unacceptable. As trade barriers are falling around the globe, differences in morality are gaining more interest regarding such issues as human rights, political behavior or even environmental conservation (Deming, 2006).

As Dr. David Perry of the U.S. Army War College reminds us, "professionals are sometimes said to be permitted to act in ways that would be unethical for private citizens. . . But professional autonomy can too easily be used by professionals rationalize abuses of their roles. Becoming a member of a profession does not render one immune to wider ethical scrutiny. Professionals do not have a "blank check" in serving the interests and wishes of their clients or in preserving their professional power" (Perry, 2003).

However, we must remember that the basic purpose of the military is to protect society from any threat. To do this, the military has been granted the use of force in a legitimate manner, a social contract regarding privacy, and as long as the Constitution is followed, in many cases a different way of interpreting stock ethical issues.

For example, one of the more robust issues surrounding the information age is the paradigm of information management and confidentiality. In the medical sector, for instance, the HIPAA Act, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is a set of regulations for healthcare providers to ensure patient confidentiality and privacy of records. Part of the Act requires that billing services use electronic transmission for financial issues; billing, claims processing, reimbursements. This not only required healthcare providers to upgrade their technology, but also launched several unique niche' markets in which medical billing and coding software was customized, and degree programs created to train and service the medical billing and coding industry (Health Information Privacy, 2012).

In contrast, while the military maintains strict confidentiality over certain records of service, health services, particularly those involving mental health issues, do not have the same level of confidentiality as the private sector. In fact, military rules do not safeguard the confidentiality of mental health communications anywhere near as strongly as those for private citizens. Military rules have a number of exceptions that could be applied to a wide range of infractions, potential security issues, and certainly, breaking military law. A Colorado psychologist who has been treating patients from Fort Carson and the Air Force Academy notes, "There really is no confidentiality, you can find an exception to confidentiality in pretty much anything one would discuss." This, of course, not only makes it difficult for medical professional to treat sensitive issues, but also for legal representative, chaplain's, or any personnel or authority figure in the military (Dao and Frosch, 2009).

Within the context of most professions, observing confidentiality means keeping information given by or about an individual in the specific course of a professional relationship private. This is seen as a central ethic maxim of trust between the professional and client. Confidentiality is owed to the client because without it, there is no bond of trust, not any way the professional can adequately perform their duties if the client is not able to be completely honest in their discussions. If there is an issue in which there is the possibility of harm towards the client or another individual, there is cause to breach that confidentiality. Taking this further into military terms, if there is reason to believe that something has national security implications, and then it stands to reason that it would negate any waiver and allow for disclosure. However, simply by becoming a soldier should not indicate that one's entire profile in mental, physical, emotional, or career confidentiality be open to anyone just because of rank. And, as is similar in business organizations, technological resources make it even more important to maintain confidentiality (Illingworth, 2010).

For intellectual property, the advent of greater technology brought about even more changes to rules and regulations in military operations. Certainly, all research and development done under military supervision is owned by the Federal Government. Confidentiality agreements are typically signed at various junctures, for both military and civilian employees. The Army and the Air Force, for instance, have regulations that protect the acquisition, protection, transfer and use of patents, copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property by the U.S. Military. Like other governmental entities, documents may be marked with several layers of security. This includes laboratory notebooks, emails, minutes of meetings, and/or any publication of material without the express approval of superior officers. The Judge Advocate General's Office administers many of these guidelines, which are designed to allow a more robust degree of protection for inventions, potential patents, and/or anything funded by the military that might result in either a foreign power or a private sector competitor usurping the information in a premature fashion (Intellectual Property, 2993).

There are two particular ways in which the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 affects the military. The Defense Department, for instance, increased its emphasis on fiscal accountability for both the military and those contractors who serve the military. Their Circular A-123 reiterated new requirements and higher standards to the military's own internal financial reporting and control, allowed for more independent, non-military audits, and charged military officers with a high degree of accuracy and responsibility for any fiscal document. Second, because of the higher standards of scrutiny and transparency, military contracts undergo a more robust audit with higher expectations for standards of performance than ever before (American Logistics Association, 2008).