|
Basic InformationMore InformationLatest NewsStudies Relying on Brain Scans Are Often Unreliable, Analysis ShowsHow You Can Help Ease the Health Crisis in UkraineAHA News: Bystander CPR on Kids Differs by Race and EthnicityU.S. Airplane, Train and Transit Mask Mandates Extended to April 18Pooch Power: Therapy Dogs Bring Quick Relief in the ERFDA Says Gene-Edited Cattle Are Safe to EatApps: They Help Manage Health Conditions, But Few Use Them, Poll FindsAre Health Care Apps in Your Future?Sackler Family & Purdue Pharma Reach Deal With U.S. States Over Opioid CrisisU.S. Traffic Deaths Rise to Highest Level Since 2007White House Unveils New COVID Response StrategyAlexa Will Soon Put Users in Touch With Telehealth DoctorsJ&J Finalizes $26 Billion Opioid SettlementNearly Half of 500 Million Free COVID Tests Still LeftResearchers Map Out Enormous Human Family TreeCDC Close to New Guidance on COVID RestrictionsWhy Is Cancer-Linked Benzene in So Many Personal Care Products?AHA News: Donating Blood Benefits Both Receiver and Giver – And Now Is a Critical TimeFDA Warns of Rising Dangers of Unapproved Drug TianeptineToo Many Americans Are Getting 'Low-Value' Medical Tests, ProceduresGuns Outpacing Car Crashes as Leading Cause of Trauma Death for AmericansCOVID Travel Rules to Europe May Be Lifted for VaccinatedSackler Family Sweetens Opioid Settlement OfferBrut, Sure Brand Deodorants Under Recall Due to Benzene'Fact Check' Notes Work Best to Counter COVID Lies OnlinePoor Will Be Hit Hardest by a Hotter WorldPandemic Put Brakes on Lifesaving Cancer Research, CareWhen Psychiatric Care Is Far Away, Telehealth Fills the GapFDA Panel Rejects Lilly’s Cancer Drug Tested Only in China1 in 3 People Now Exposed to a Harmful PesticideHow Healthy Is Your State? New Federal Data Ranks EachRed Cross Says Blood Shortage Is Worst in a DecadeBiden Relaunches Cancer Moonshot InitiativeGruesome Warning Images on Soda Labels Could Cut ConsumptionYour Gas Stove Might Make You (and the Planet) SickBiden Administration Withdraws Vaccine Mandate for Large EmployersFree N95 Masks Begin Arriving in U.S. PharmaciesEngland to Lift Travel Restrictions for Vaccinated VisitorsMany Marijuana Vendors Aim Advertising at Kids: StudyConservatorships Keep the Homeless in Psychiatric Wards Too Long: StudyCrowded Emergency Rooms Cost Lives: StudyColonoscopy Surprise Bills Should Be Thing of the Past, Experts SayBiden Plans to Send 400 Million N95 Masks to Americans for FreeWhite House Launches Website for Free Home COVID Tests One Day Ahead of SchedulePolitics Clouds Folks' Views on COVID Rules, Global Survey ConfirmsCOVAX Program Has Now Sent 1 Billion COVID Vaccines to Poorer NationsAmid U.S. Blood Shortage, New Pressure to Ease Donor Rules for Gay MenSupreme Court Blocks Biden's Vaccine Mandate for Large EmployersWhite House May Soon Offer 'High-Quality' Masks to AmericansAmericans Should Avoid Travel to Canada: CDC Questions and AnswersLinksBook Reviews |
| |
by Onora O'Neill Cambridge University Press, 2002 Review by Berel Dov Lerner, Ph.D. on Nov 19th 2002 
Onora
ONeill is wary of suspicion. In her
professional capacity as an academic philosopher, she has pursued this theme in
regards to medical ethics. In the
present extremely brief volume (108 uncramped pages), O'Neill offers a quick
and non-technical overview of her thoughts on the wider phenomena of trust and
distrust in contemporary Western society, particularly in the U.K.
Apparent
signs of distrust are not hard to find. Public opinion polls seem to indicate
that we have lost faith in practically all of our major institutions. Patients question their physicians medical
advice, citizens lack confidence in the abilities and honesty of politicians
and government agencies, and investors are jaded by the scandals that shake the
financial world. Are we then poised on
the brink of some paralyzing crisis of confidence?
ONeill
points out that there is something false about our distrust. After all, practically everyone continues to
seek treatment in hospitals, educate their children in schools, and call upon
the police for protection. Although suspicion
is fashionable, it is rarely deep enough to keep people from depending on the
institutions of society in their everyday lives.
Our
distrust, she argues, is superficial because it is unreasonable. It is childish and utopian to withhold trust
until every possibility of deception has been stamped out. However, the news media consistently blow
our societies occasional scandals out of all proportion, creating the
impression of a general failure of professional ethics. Ironically, pollsters
find that the news media themselves constitute perhaps the least trusted institution
of all.
Faced
with charges of deception, modern institutions adopt the panacea of formalized schemes
of accountability. Hospitals, schools and government agencies
devote ever-larger portions of their budgets towards apologizing for how they
dispose of their budgets. Professionals
find themselves spending more time proving the quality of their work to
bureaucrats, and less time actually serving the public. Of course, these systems of accountability
must be amenable to quantification. They
must produce streams of bureaucracy-friendly information, which often reflect
nothing or little of the actual quality of work being monitored. Worst of all, accountability schemes can actually
distort peoples professional judgment.
Instead of trying to actually do their best, people working under a
strict regime of accountability must gear their performance towards the fulfillment
of artificial, and often irrelevant, official criteria of efficiency.
At
the end of the day, no system of bureaucratic controls can ever dispel our fear
of deception. In fact, the spotlights
and microscopes of intimate regulation create pressures for deception that did
not exist previously; ask enough questions, and you can turn anyone into a liar.
We end up flooded with information regarding peoples performance, but lack any
guaranty of its accuracy. Who can vouch
for the diligence of inspectors and the veracity of audits? Todays common wisdom would seem to suggest
that we must set up an infinite regress of inspectors, each looking over the
others shoulder.
O'Neill
proposes that we act to restore trust by dismantling the rampant accountability-inquisition
and by channeling our attention to the reform of the media. Journalism demands that every institution be
held accountable, excepting itself.
Rumor, opinion and fact mix freely on the pages of our newspapers. (Although I would say this is perhaps truer
of the British than American press). No
one seems to care whether headlines correctly reflect the content of
articles. O'Neill does not offer a
specific plan of action, but she would like to see journalists and news
organizations reveal their monetary sources, as well as their news sources. In a nutshell, she makes one simple and
obviously justified demand of journalists: That they actually offer some kind
of assessable evidence for the veracity of the stories they tell. Isnt it remarkable that the press has never
demanded that of itself?
© 2002 Berel Dov Lerner
Born
in Washington, D.C., Berel Dov Lerner studied at Johns Hopkins and the University
of Chicago, before becoming a member of Kibbutz Sheluhot in Israels Beit Shean
Valley. He completed his Ph.D. at Tel-Aviv
University, and currently teaches philosophy at the Western Galilee Academic
College. His first book, Rules,
Magic and Instrumental Reason was published last year by Routledge.
|