¶ … moral relativism applied in this case and why did that result in fraud? Fraud occurred because morals apparently were not even a factor in the decisions being made in this particular situation. The one individual Dr. Pollack that did actually show moral fiber regarding the patient was the one penalized for following what he believed to be true and morally correct. The reading describes a scene in which cohorts discuss how they feel the actions of Dr. Pollack were in poor judgment, and further explain that that is probably why they are still working and he is not.

What does this case imply for whistle-blowers? It is abundantly clear that this case implies that if you are a whistle blower you stand to lose a lot. In fact one could say that judging from the circumstances discussed, one would want to conform to the "norm," in order to save ones self from career suicide, as evidenced by what happened to Dr. Pollack in the writing. Another aspect up for consideration deals with the final statement that was made by Dr. Pollack. There has to be a time when people are willing to stand for what is right and in their beliefs. Unfortunately, time has proven that great losses come from standing behind a belief system or truth that is not held by all individuals involved. Conclusively, one would feel that punishment and lose is the payment for stepping out of the box, and pointing out errors, indiscretions etc. The question becomes, is honesty really the best policy? In Dr. Pollack's opinion, the answer is and will remain to be yes. He stood by his beliefs regardless of his losses, which were extreme, especially considering the fact he was trying to do right by the customer, and correct the errors that were taking place. Instead, he personally lost a substantial part of his salary and was demoted, not many people would have done that.

Reference

Nara Schoenberg, "A Man of Principle," 1/25/04, Chicago Tribune Magazine p. 13-29.