Prevention is better than cure
CHAPTER 7 WHISTLEBLOWING IN ETHICAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SYSTEMS
The whistleblower as ethical canary
Whistleblowing as ethical right action
Whistleblowing and the emperor’s clothes
The whistleblower and an ethic of care
Embedding an ethic of care into health and social care practice and systems
Ethics and care throughout health and social care systems
CHAPTER 8 ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND WHISTLEBLOWING
Ethical leadership and an ethical organizational culture
Emotional intelligence and the ethical leader
Emotional intelligence in the workplace
CHAPTER 9 THE ETHICAL POINT OF WHISTLEBLOWING
Leadership, Anti-Bathsheba style
POSTSCRIPT FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER
ABBREVIATIONS
| NGO | Non-governmental organization, such as a charity or not-for profit agency |
| NHS | National Health Service (UK) |
| PCaW | Public Concern at Work, a UK whistleblowing NGO |
| PIDA | Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (UK) |
CHAPTER 1
THE PARADOX OF WHISTLEBLOWING
Many who report wrongdoing in the workplace – whistleblowers – become targets of harassment, intimidation, investigation, persecution and prosecution, to name but some acts of retaliation. The whistleblower may well be protected in law in a number of jurisdictions globally (the UK is one), yet that protection may not save them from the personal damage and professional detriment that is losing their job, career, family and financial security.
Great claims are often heard about the heroism of whistleblowing and whistleblowers. Public Concern at Work (PCaW), a UK whistleblowing charity, paid tribute to the ‘important role that whistleblowing plays in achieving effective governance and an open culture’, and regarded whistleblowing as ‘one of the most effective ways to uncover fraud against organisations’ (PCaW 2013, p.5). Fine words may pour forth from the mouths of politicians, usually long after the mobilization of state-funded retaliation against the whistleblower has done its work. The then UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, said in the House of Commons in answer to an oral question on 24 April 2013 that, ‘…we should support whistleblowers and what they do to help improve the provision of public services’. While it’s always nice to be appreciated, even by a prime minister, the damage and destruction meted out to the whistleblower after they put their head above the parapet to speak out, suggests that relying on any appreciative accolades would be ill-advised. Grand words about the great job the whistleblower may do sit uneasily alongside evidence of the collateral, lifelong damage to lives, livelihoods, relationships, careers and health of those who stepped up to speak out: the whistleblowers.
PATTERNS OF PARADOX
Whistleblowing is the raising of a concern in the workplace or externally, about malpractice, poor practice, wrongdoing, risk or danger that affects others. There is no common definition of whistleblowing internationally. The whistleblower is a person who raises concerns in the public interest. They may not recognize themselves as such at the time they do this. Their concerns may be about the safety of a patient or user of health or social care services, or the integrity of the health or care system itself, as in the case of theft, waste, deception and duplicity (Francis 2015).
Whistleblowing – the act, the response, as well as the deafening silence of those who stand by in the face of wrongdoing – touches some very deep recesses of what it is to be human, to bear witness to wrongdoing, or to turn away. Most employees have observed wrongdoing. But most employers do not act to stop wrongdoing they know is going on (Miceli, Near and Dworkin 2009). These are but some of the paradoxes that whistleblowing presents, and which this book examines.
The UK prime minister quoted above was barely out of college when Stephen Bolsin took up post as a consultant anaesthetist at the Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI) in England in 1988. From the start of his time in that hospital, Stephen Bolsin was troubled by the very high mortality rates for children undergoing heart surgery. Bolsin’s were very serious concerns, substantiated by data on mortality outcomes. He raised these matters repeatedly with senior consultants in the hospital, with the national Department of Health, and the General Medical Council, the UK regulatory body of registered medical practitioners. When no action was taken by the hospital or the Department of Health, Bolsin took his concerns to the media. This prompted inquiry by the General Medical Council. Dr Bolsin was
