70 likes | 175 Views
Public Safety vs. Private Rights: Beauty and the Building. Ms. Disher’s sample TOK presentation Spring 2011. Issues at Hand. Brazilian Keratin Treatment http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/26/earlyshow/health/main3414868.shtml Asbestos
E N D
Public Safety vs. Private Rights: Beauty and the Building Ms. Disher’s sample TOK presentation Spring 2011
Issues at Hand • Brazilian Keratin Treatment • http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/26/earlyshow/health/main3414868.shtml • Asbestos • http://www.mogulite.com/asbestos-mogul-on-daily-show/
Two Sides to Every Story (BKT) Regulate use of potentially harmful chemicals in beauty industry Do not regulate use of potentially harmful chemicals • Customers may not fully understand risks of treatment • A person at any age can get the treatment, so maturity is a factor • Fumes from the treatment can harm others (person performing treatment, other customers/professionals in the salon) • Does not guarantee health problems, merely increases likelihood • People who opt for the treatment should make themselves aware of the risks—personal responsibility (ignorance=not govt’s problem) • Regulation—we don’t strictly regulate chemicals in other products (hair dye, nail polish)
Knowledge Issues (BKT) • How far can/should government agencies go to protect the individual? • Where do we draw the line between a private decision (hairstyle) and public safety (fumes)? • Does the government know what’s best for an individual? • Moral/ethical responsibility to care for citizens? • Where do public/private boundaries lie?
Two Sides to Every Story (Asbestos) Regulating Dangerous Substances (construction related) Free Market on Construction Supplies • Exploitation of the poor (richer countries regulate asbestos, third world countries generally don’t)—limited finances=no other choice • Health risks outside the company selling and the buyer (shipping, packing, unpacking=exposure) • Known health problems=higher risk • Allows for freedom of choice in supplies (individuals know what is best for them) • Lower cost=more homes/buildings • Company’s profit benefits employees and shareholders
Knowledge Issues (Asbestos) • Should American regulations apply in other countries if human life is at risk? • Should America intervene in the private practice of selling asbestos as a “safe” material? • Is it ethical for a company to sell harmful substances, knowing what the health risks are? • How far do individual rights extend when others’ health is concerned? (ex. CEO, shareholders/board of directors, company employees, contractors purchasing materials) • Do we have a moral obligation to intervene for people who may be at risk (or “don’t know better”)?