Description
INSTRUCTIONS: Please read the case description and questions that follow. Copy and paste the
eight questions into a word document. Leave the questions in bold text, and provide your
answer below each question in normal text. You will then upload the document containing your
eight responses. Please use complete sentences to respond to each of the questions.
Case Description
A 9-year-old girl in a predominantly low-income, Latinx neighborhood of Los Angeles began
suffering severe nosebleeds, headaches, and heart palpitations. Around the same time, the
girl?s mother and grandmother were diagnosed with asthma at ages 40 and 70, respectively.
The family?s neighbors were experiencing headaches, nausea, and symptoms associated with
irritation to the airways, eyes, nose, and throat. The girl?s community became concerned about
the putrid smelling air emanating from the corporate site across the street. The corporation
operated an oil well on site, which emitted odorous petroleum-based compounds. The active
well was located near low-income housing (where the girl and her family lived), day care
centers, and numerous schools. Subsequent investigations would later reveal that the
corporation operated in general compliance with permit conditions, but neither an
environmental impact report (EIR) nor health impact assessment (HIA) were required to
establish permit conditions for the corporation. The girl?s family and her neighbors advocated
for a group of toxicologists to come speak to their community, and the toxicologists explained
that certain chemicals used for oil extraction can be harmful to human health if individuals are
exposed over long periods of time. The girl?s community filed complaints with the local Air
Quality Management District and organized neighbors to share their experiences at a City Hall
hearing. Throughout this endeavor, the girl became the face of the community?s grassroots
effort, which increased news media coverage of the issue. A local politician became aware of
the effort and brought in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do a check up on the
community. The EPA investigators became sick from the odors as they were conducting their
assessment in the community near the oil well. An impact analysis would later reveal that the
health effects documented in the community were related to a 400% increase in drilling
operations by the corporation. The corporation temporarily shut down its site and the city of
Los Angeles secured a court order requiring the corporation to follow regulations if it wishes to
resume drilling.
Questions.
1. Summarize the most pertinent details of the case in no more than 3 sentences.
2. Who are the key stakeholders involved in the case?
3. What information is available to make decisions with, and what information is
lacking?
4. What power dynamics are at play?
5. Name one ethical problem that is germane to the case.
6. Identify one decision that was made or that could have been made by a stakeholder.
7. In an alternative scenario, where a HIA is paid for prior to the corporation increasing
its drilling operations, who should be held responsible for understanding the effects of
drilling operations on the health of the local community?
8. You are part of a team that was asked to evaluate the ethical issues pertinent to the
case, and your team has concluded that the corporation had committed an error by
not conducting an HIA nor EIR prior to increasing drilling operations. Develop an
argument to support this conclusion using either a deontological or utilitarian
normative ethical theory. In your first sentence, state whether you are using a
deontological or utilitarian theory to develop your argument. Write no more than 5
sentences in your response to this question.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
