David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 2 Assignment: Write a reflection of chapter 2 using the prompts below as a guide:

1. Use the questions on p. 41 as prompts for reflections to prepare for next week's discussions. 2. Using the discussion of Jean Val Jean and the Thernardiers on p. 42 as an example, identify the way a protagonist(s) and antagonist(s) in a story you know illustrate contrasting communicative ethics. 3. Can you extend the example to people you know in real life?

Question one on page 41 threw me. It asked simply to describe the narrative that guides my life. Such a simple request; such a complicated answer. My narrative can best be summed up by one of Lincolns more famous quotes: When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad I use this simple catechism to guide my actions choosing more often than not to do the things that make me feel comfortable with my decisions. I do, however, live this narrative outside the framework of the church and outside the constricting narrative of a specific political movement. I self-select as a liberal democrat, but do not follow politics closely enough to deep-dive to a specific sub-group of liberal democrats. As I walk through my life, I try to observe and reflect, then act. I try to base my decisions on the things that lead to a positive reflection of my actionsadmittedly I look for this positivity from external observers as much as I look for it within myselfand I try to talk the talk as well as walk the walk. My conversations with my closest friends are based in honesty, though rarely absolute. I believe, and can reconcile within my narrative of doing what feels right, that there are minor fictions that we never need to share. White lies, though liberating to work through, are often best left alone. Bigger fictions are best uncovered, resolved and dismissed. Quickly! Different narratives are often difficult to uncover. I think that there are select groups of people who have keen intuition and can read peoples feeling about a given topic long before the subject has had a chance to consciously form an opinion. I am not in one of those groups. I have no sense of intuition, and thus have an incredibly difficult time understanding different personal narratives that

arent explicit. Once someone explains the narrative they use to build their beliefs, I believe that I can understand and appreciate their directional thinking, but there are times when I dont understand peoples reactions specifically because they have disguised, or simply havent discussed, the narrative they use to construct their understanding. What romance doesnt have conflicting communication narratives?! You can look to any love story, from Hedwig, Yitzhak and Tommy Gnosis in Hedwig and the Angry Inch to Juliet, Peter and Mark in Love Actually to Cecilia, Briony and Robbie in Atonement the classic love triangle that is nothing more than conflicting communication ethics and narratives set to the overarching desire to complete that which is missing from our lives through connectivity with another. Im not sure if youve ever been in a love triangle, but theyre rarely ever quirky or resolvable. They rely on a variable understanding of the ethics of commitment through communication. If someone says, I love you, does it only stick until they love someone else more? Love triangles in film, as in life, rely on multiple truths: it has to be right and true to love the person youre with, it has to be right and true to accept love from the person who pines for you, it has to be right and true to love them back. All of which defy the dominant relationship narrative. I can extend the example to people that I know in real life, but Im confident that they would be appalled to be brought into this. I have a couple of friends who disappointed me once. In a moment of weakness, they slept together. Ordinarily not a topic that requires my input (unless Im involved, and I wasnt.) I had, however, been romantically linked in the past to one of the two. The three of us were now in an awkward, loveless, love-triangle. They both constructed elaborate fictions at first as they relayed the parts of the story they were willing to share with me. They lied. Both by omission of fact and by replacing the truth with something else altogether. Their motives were no different than the narrative by which I live my life when they did good, they felt good appliedthey felt good about sleeping with one another, and they feel good about keeping it from me to spare the embarrassment and pain that it would cause. When they did bad, they felt bad caught up with them both as the lies became too much to manage. It wasnt long before they came clean and explained their fling as a

passing infatuation. At first their lies made sense, and werent harmful. They were designed to avoid harm, but as they grew and grew it became obvious that truth was the best way to avoid harm.

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 3 Assignment: Write a reflection of chapter 3

The principle tenants of Chapter three are that there are several practical approaches to communication ethics: Democratic approach Universal-humanitarian approach Codes, procedures, and standards approach Contextual approach Narrative approach Dialogic communication ethic

The thing that struck me about the reading is how instinctually I felt that some approaches were right and others were less-so. For example, the Democratic approach feels like something I can get on board with I approve of the opportunity to construct right and wrong through consensus and voting, but I take issue with Universal-humanitarians foundation in enlightenment. While I believe in the enlightenment, I question the ability of every communicator to tap into rationality in reality as a guiding ethical principle. The book says that Pre-existing goods are revealed to society by gifted intellectuals who have the ability and responsibility to discern them (Arnett, Fritz, Bell, 2009, p. 48). Earlier in this paragraph, I said that I can appreciate the Democratic application, and feel that the Universal-humanitarian model is entirely counter to this. When we expect people to believe the intellegencia, we ask them to give away a measure of free will that I find to be necessary in determining ethics (perhaps I truly believe in a contextual approach to ethics; an approach where each person is responsible for determining right-and-wrong for themselves.)

The questions on page 58 of the text begin with an interesting question. The authors ask us to find a student handbook and list several goods that are protected and promoted. Queens students are bound by the Honor Code, which protects and promotes citizenship and civility among our students. We are encouraged to create a sense of integrity and honor for its own sake while treating others with respect. Further, all students resolve to uphold the code and not to tolerate violations by others. The Honor Code is firmly rooted in Universal-humanitarianism in that a member of the intellegencia set forth the principles that will guide us, but that are inherent in our academic culture. If you find yourself in violation of these codes, procedures, and standards you must appear before a council of peers to determine the severity of your punishment. At this point, you could use a contextual argument to explain your situationif you felt you were being virtuous. But ultimately the good that is being promoted and protected has been handed down carefully selected from all the available goods and made useful for the universitys population. Interesting, that in an environment of ideas, the most restrictive application of communication ethics is used. Id like to think more about the ways communication ethics are present in everyday situations, and look forward especially to seeing how they intertwine with one another. No approach exists in a vacuum, and I plan to write more about intertwining approaches around the same situation in my filmbased paper.

References Arnett, R., Fritz, J., Belk L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 4 Assignment: Write a reflection of chapter 4

On common sense: The contemporary American assumption about smoking is that it is a terrible habit, completely addictive and extremely harmful to ones health. Our collective common sense tells us that, if youre a smoker, you shouldnt be and if you arent you had better not start. Im an educated person completely capable of understanding both the physical implications of smoking and the root of the collective common sense that encourages us not to smoke. Why, then, do I do it? Its easy to blame smoking on the serious condition of nicotine addiction, but lets tell the truth for a minute I was educated when I began smoking and began of my own volition. My defiance in the face of common sense shared by the populous and by the medical profession predates the physical addition to the chemicals in cigarettes. If we believe the basic assumption that common sense is rooted in the fringes of hegemony, that it is the manifestation of the assumptions we make about the way the world works, then we have to understand where I was when I began smoking. Id like to take pause for a moment and explain how this autoethnography of a bad habit relates to Communication Ethics. Smoking is a physical act, but one that carries significant implied communication markers. Smokers are oft perceived as weak-willed, immature, and irresponsible. Should I cite this? Probably, but Im not quoting social science here Im speaking of my feelings towards myself and those I know that share my bad habit. If we were stronger-willed, we would just stop. Lots of people stop, and so could we. If we were more mature and responsible, we would look to the proven long-term risks associated with smoking, perform a simple cost/benefit analysis and decide that we shouldnt have started smoking in the first place, then revisit being strong-willed. Those three markers (being weak-willed, immature, and irresponsible) are associated at least colloquially with an individual who is lesstrustworthy. If we assume that trust is a fundamental component of communication and especially

dialogue then we must assume that smokers have an increased potential to be poor communicators because of the traits that carry over from their bad habits. The text tells us that the loss of confidence in ones vision of universal truth requires us to take ever so seriously the importance of peripheral visionIn our peripheral vision, we sense the reality of multiplicity, the reality of difference all around us in daily communicative life. (Arnett, Fritz, Bell, p. 70) When I began smoking, I was in art school and didnt see the long term effects of my habit. Growth and maturity have shown me the effects and I chose to cease the action on which I write. But because I lived with smoking for so long, I understand that the social stigma is real and unjust. The feelings expressed towards smokers from the non-smoking populationthe very notion that if we really wanted to, we could just stopis unfair. The common sense of public health tells us not to smoke, but each of our life stories tells us that we may need this addiction to move from day-to-day until we are strong enough to quit.

Afterward: I wasnt strong enough to quit. I didnt smoke for several weeks, but recently picked the habit back up. Its clearer now, more than ever, that physical additioneven those that fly in the face of common sensemust be understood within the context of the addicted. We can all agree that smoking is bad. We shouldnt assume that all smokers are.

References Arnett, R., Fritz, J., Bell L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 5

Dialogic ethics listens to what is before one, attends to the historical moment, and seeks to negotiate new possibilities (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p. 95) What statement could possibly be more important in a programin a lifebased on the assumption of socially constructed reality? The very notion of the social construction of reality assumes a social presence in ones life; that is, other people have to be let in, or construction is halted by ones own prejudices. Im struck, when listening to the texts authors write about dialogic ethics, by the basic agreement of this philosophy with Social Mediawhich constitutes an overwhelming amount of our everyday conversation and dialogue. Some may argue that this is not a valid area for dialogue; I argue that any platform in the public sphere is fair game. Social Media (capitalized and defined broadly on purpose) is the contemporary equivalent of the Roman Senate. The modern town square. Todays fill-in-the-blank. Its the space we allow ourselves to come together and discuss. For the sake of this reflection, well have to table the reality that its nearly impossible to gage authenticity, personality, tone, privilege, etc. with Social Media. Well make some basic assumptions about its appropriateness in this area: specifically, that it is an open platform that allows one person to make a statement for others to evaluate, discuss, and comment upon. Gadamer tells us that dialogue assumes bias and that biases guide our unique insights and contributions to everyday life, (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p. 86) while Freire tells us that the invitation to dialogue is impossible between persons of unequal power. (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p. 87) If we believe only Gadamer, we would understand that the self-selective properties of Social Media would eliminate the dialogic properties promoted by bias. If we believe only Freire (on just this particular statement), we cant allow Social Media to be a space for discourse as Social Media is not an electronic equalizer: disparities in privilege and access, Social Media create a very real division of power in this space. But if we read them with Martin Buber, who tells us that dialogue is only one way to

communicate with another, (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, 2009, p. 83) we can see that this platform is validated as a dialogic platform as long as it is used in conjunction with other communicative spaces. We use the term social construction of reality pretty fast-and-loose in our graduate program. Not lightly, but frequently. I think its important to reiterate that the social construction of reality came to exist in our minds the same way that that the Nile came to exist in the minds of ancient Egyptiansbecause someone said it did. Said. Words, dialogue, and communicative acts created everything around us. Our text tells us that there are 4 requirements for dialogic ethics literacy, and Id like to explore how each relates to the use of Social Media as a dialogic platform: Listening without demand: Social Media is a projectile platform. It is as easy to create a thought (via status update, Tweet, etc.) as it is to respond. It is also possible to listen (or read) each of these projectile statements at ones leisure. The basic pretense of the status update is that someone will read it, but they may not. Generally, there is no expectation of responsive act (depending on the phrasing of the statement.) Attentiveness: The Selfs narrative in this platform is revealed through context of all updates, generally not an express statement. The Others narrative can be presented in much the same way. Recognition of the historical moment in time is easySocial Media is ongoing and contemporary; its nothing if not a representation of a moment in time. Dialogic Negotiation is a bit harder to prove using this platform primarily because of the omnipresence of web anonymity using this platform. Dialogic negotiation is a byproduct of reflexive and responsive authenticity in communication and the onus is on the participants in Social Media to bring this authenticity to the table. Temporal dialogic ethical competence, as it relates to what worked and what didnt are best shown by the ever-evolving nature of Social Media. If something doesnt work in the dialogue or in the communicative acts, the media ceases to exist and is replaced by a more suitable alternative.

Is the notion of Social Media as a dialogic platform firmly rooted in a moment in time? Absolutely. In fact, had I reflected on these communication theories 5 years ago or 5 years from now, this fleeting thought about a contemporary communication tool wouldnt have crossed my mind. But I think its fascinating to think about how established theories can be applied to a tool that many consider consumeronly. Social Media, for the moment, has quietly infiltrated our communication processes and deserves to be studied alongside, and with the same theories, as other communication channels.

References Arnett, R., Fritz, J., Bell L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 6 Assignment: Write a reflection of chapter 6

I found Chapter 6 to be a challenging read. Though I understood the basic premise that dialogue must exist in a public space, and that public space must be protected and differentiated from private space I struggled with the notion of public and private space. After mulling on this notion for nearly a week, I read an excerpt from Elsewhere, U.S.A. that made the basic premise crystal clear. In Elsewhere, U.S.A. Dalton Conley tells us that the intravidual is a product of changes in economy, family, and technology. The intravidual has multiple selves competing for attention within his/her own mind, just as, externally, she or he is bombarded by multiple stimuli simultaneously (Conley, 2009, p.7). The intravidual is a physical representation of the depletion of public space. As we allow our lives to be infiltrated by elements that were once external as we loose the ability to filter work from personal we see the private sphere become endangered. Perhaps more problematically for dialogic ethics, we see the private sphere become proportionally endangered. Our text asks us in the chapter-end writing prompts to consider intimate and distant relationships to understand changes in communication in both spheres. What would a reflection be without a personal anecdote? I currently live with an ex. Its a toxic and mildly volatile situation that Im not fond of, but the living situation benefits us both. When we were a couple we shared a tremendous amount of private and intimate information that would be completely out of place in a distant or professional relationship. There are details of our lives that are not public identity markers that we know and understand to be true based entirely on contextual background, many of which do not stem from direct conversation. Because our current situation is more transactional I have a condo, he needed a place to live temporarily, he moved in and pays rent we slip into a transactional relationship more common among those people who are professional colleagues or acquaintances. Our public and private spheres are completely intertwined and our relationship suffers because of it. This story is not intended to hint at salacious details untold, rather to explain the fundamental principle I used to interpret the reading: if we assume that dialogic ethics is

dependent on a particular arrangement of public and private space (e.g. dialogue happens in public space where we are not always at home specifically because we are offered a disconnect from goings-on related to personal space) our understanding of these public and private spheres is directly impacted by our identity markers and the veracity with which we protect our own private sphere. A challenge comes in understanding how to define, protect and encourage the protection of our private sphere. If we allow that protection is essential to dialogue, which is then essential to dialogical ethics, we must look externally (appropriately) to encourage those with whom we interact to be as protective of the public sphere as we are. Im not sure how this is done, and our text didnt necessarily offer a solution, but I assume that the basic answer to protecting the communication space required for dialogue is housed in that very communication space. Just as the Invisible Hand modulates and course corrects (in theory) the capitalist model, communication space must be self-policed, self-moderated, and universally understood to be important. I am reminded of a basic rule of social media. There are few, if any, moderators and there are few, if any, rules. Its important to take a level of personal responsibility for actions on this platform, just as it is important to take a level of personal responsibility for your activity in the public sphere. When we learn to leave work behind and learn to identify our personal identity with the markers that indicate what we enjoy instead of what we do, we will see a correlating separation of personal and private communication spheres.

References Conley, D. (2009). Elsewhere, U.S.A. New York: Pantheon

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 7

Though the assignment was technically to write a reflection on Chapters 7 and 9 together, I am deeply interested in interpersonal communication and decided to write this reflection separately. When reading this chapter, the section on Hesed jumped right off the page as something that I plan to study further in terms on interpersonal communication. Ive been interested lately in the blurring of the lines between public and private space as we allow our interpersonal transactions to slowly erode the foundations of these two spaces. I feel that our interpersonal transactions (note: I am consciously not using the word relationships) are out of control. Weve lost the relationship between acquantence and friend, college and friend, friend and loved-one. Perhaps we never had it to begin with. Its easy to blame technology for our diminished interpersonal relationship capacity. Social Media and the ease of communication facilitated by this platform have watered down our transactions to the point that we are hard pressed to categorize our true friends. The language of these media are deceivingcan we truly have 500+ friends? Back to Hesed for a minute Im intrigued by the possibility that imperatives exist that are understood to be for the good of the whole, but that do not require a request. I understand this to be a valid mechanism in the academic study of society, but wonder how it manifests in interpersonal relationshipsespecially those with our loved ones. How often can one pin-point a critical action required to maintain a relationship with a loved one that just needed to happen? My guess is the number is so astronomical that it cant be counted. We understand the needs of our loved ones, and act to preserve our relationship with them (the good of the whole) and rarely need to be informed of the correct course of action. Lets turn this around for a minute. As I mentioned in a previous reflection, I currently live with someone with whom I have a close interpersonal relationship. I have, for a number of years, cared deeply for this person and have, at all costs, worked to maintain our relationship. We have been successful friends for a period of time, but our relationship has only briefly ventured from this space. A few weeks

ago, I made a demand and violated the terms of Hesed by expressing what I thought should happen to protect the relationship. By doing so, I also violated one of the primary assumptions of Chapter 7: that you cant make demands on interpersonal relationships to transform them at your urging and will. The text specifically tells us that we often unknowingly make unethical communication maneuvers by demanding a form of interpersonal communication that does not naturally exist. I manifested my feelings to words and demanded that the relationship, and the discursive parallel, follow my lead. By speaking the demands, I unethically changed the nature of the conversations and the relationship, and killed the common good (of protecting the relationship) that Hesed privileges. Whoops. Interpersonal relationships are complex beasts that exist in an odd space between the public and private spheres. The key to authentically exploring these relationships lies in first understanding that they are inherently complex and difficult to understand. Hesed is awareness. Awareness of your situation is the key to analysis.

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 8

The saying refers to the current living practices that manifest a given good; the said refers to memories of past and current public practices that form a substrate for future communicative action.

My career path started, as did so many of those with whom I graduated from art school, in a freewheeling, but corporate, ad agency. The environment was relaxed, energetic, and ideal for a nave graphic designer and illustrator. I spend time making artwork meant to entice our customers customers into buying things that they, realistically, didnt need. I had just been assigned to a new account, producing point-of-purchase displays, advertisements, trade pubs, and other assorted collateral for a plastics company that offered to replace the existing architectural molding on your house with identical, but newand-plasticized, architectural molding from their plant when I heard from a friend about an opening at an establishedbut scrappynonprofit organization, which would ultimately change the trajectory of my career. Those of us at the ad agency believed in sustainability, we believed in fair business practices, we believed in the power of design (as an artful form of expression) to change the world. We also believed that you should put some cash in your pocket every chance you had. The saying at the agency was that, by earning profits and by meeting client expectations, we could sustain a business model that would, in turn, sustain all of our employees. Business was good, our paychecks were good. I worked for a young art director who had been with the agency for just a few years. He worked for the principal of the agency who had started the business from scratch about 30 years before. The Art Directors name was Kevin, the principals name was Dick. Kevin was tasked with new business development and client relationships. He actively sought reasons for our clients to design new work, and in the process earn some billable hours for the agency. Dick was in a different position. Dick was our said. And when he said, we listened.

Kevin was energetic and interested in growing the business to the point that his service would be rendered invaluable. His intentions were honorablehis primary goal was making sure each and every employee had enough work that we could continually justify the agencys payroll, and by doing so he provided for the trickle-down recipients of our salaries (the landlords, the attendant at the gas station, the farmers who sold food to Harris Teeter that we bought, etc.) His tactics, however, tended to lean towards the predatory. He was an aggressive salesman who tried at every turn to encourage clients to produce work that was usually only marginally effective. Though his actions lived in an ethically ambiguous space (these were our clients, after all, and were not forced to do anything against their will,) I often felt that he committed ethics violations in what I now know to be the saying. Dick brought to the table years of gentlemanly public relations experience. His organizational model was built on interpersonal relationships that developed into business transactions, eventually. Dick brought to the agency an institutional memory and a set of texts with clients on which Kevin could act. He was the pillar on which our business model was built. Both men operated ethically in business and in their communication practices. Kevin was a salesman, Dick was the institution. Together they formed a pair of businessmen who worked to sustain what was, to their business, an overarching good: the sustainability of their workforce. The accountability of their actions was present in the checks we received weekly, and the satisfaction of our clients in our work. They were both publically scrutinized from with the agency and from our client base. We passed muster.

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 10

The writing prompts in Chapter 10 ask me to think of a business or nonprofit for which I would consider working, then evaluate their mission statement to understand which goods they protect and promote. I dont need to think about this theoretically, as Ive done it already. Every time the chapter mentions that change and reflexivity are necessary to protect and promote the good of a given organization, I think (and noted in the margins) of my time in the nonprofit sector as a programming staffer at an artist residency center. Big business and industry are firmly rooted in their operational models, andthough a commitment to change and reflexivity may be presentflexibility is a difficult notion to promote and an even more difficult task to accomplish. Nonprofits, specifically small ones, are known to be nimble, creative, energetic, and willing to do what it takes to promote their mission. The mission at the artist residency center where I worked was short and clear: we seek to promote contemporary art and artists to the vanguard of society. We housed 8 artists 3 times per year and paid stipends/living expenses so that they could have what we often referred to as the gift of timethe ability to create their work, and reflect on it, divorced from the everyday drudgery of paying bills, maintaining housing, maintaining studio practice, etc. There were between 15 and 20 staff members and an operating budget of over $2m/year. Our operation was nearly a decade old at the time that I left, and was well established in the artist residency center community. A large percentage of our funding was dependent on grant allocation and private donations. I mention this to make a pointwe werent nimble in the same was that a .com startup would be; responsive to every market action that required a change in our message or organization. We were nimble in a way that only an organization that depends on gifted money from organizations and people can be. If money didnt come, we would often reorganize to ensure our budget dollars covered our programs. One year, after I had been working at the Center for nearly a year, our primary source of fundinga basic operating grantwas significantly cut. We evaluated options to reduce our costs, including limiting the

number of residencies we would host each year. The decision was that this was counter to our very reason for existence, and thus not an option to reduce cost. We instead cut nonessential programming and reduced operating studio costs. The leadership had cause to evaluate the direction that the organization was headed (what better reason than economic crisis to evaluate your current direction!) and decided that the direction we were headed in regards to our general programming was true, and that the general direction we were headed with our nonessential programs was off-course. Thus they were cut from our line-up. The staffers responsible for these programs were responsive and flexible as wellno one was laid off, and everyone reallocated their resources to other programs that stayed intact. If I worked for a bank or large industry, I would imagine the situation would be very different. Though discourse protocols are essentially the same in these large industries (we were, after all, a professional organization,) the amount of time required to change the direction of hundreds or thousands of employees would be much longer and could ultimately overshadow the original problem of funding cuts. Note that I no longer work for this organization. I left specifically because I disagreed with a new direction that the organizations leadership saw as important to the organizations success. This is the thing about change and reflexivity in organizations as they correspond to personal greater goods sometimes they dont agree and the individualthe employeemust decide if the new direction is the one theyd like to travel. I was granted the luxury to decide (as I had lined up a new job before leaving) but many are forced to change directions with their organization with little input and no opportunity to reconcile their personal promotion of the greater good. Its in instances like this when communication ethics violations can occur in the workplace between personal communication ethics and professional communication ethics. One must work hard to find the authentic sense of good when they do not have the luxury of choosing the direction their organization takes in response to the need for change.

David Owens-Hill / Ethics in Communication / Reflection on Chapter 11

I am (surprisingly, considering my dining habits and my aversion to exercise) pretty healthy. And yet, I am frequently drawn into conversations about healthcare and insurance. If we accept the assumption that healthcare ethics exists to promote the common good of responsiveness and of kindness in the face of overwhelming human despair, we must ask ourselves where the general indicator of good falls. We are not entitled to health, nor are we entitled to healthcare. The politics of Universal Healthcare has been covered with much greater poetry than I can accomplish here, but the sentiment remains in my mind: how can we, as a people who consider ourselves ethical, allow any of our co-contributors in society to remain ill? We, as a society, are falling short in our ethical commitment to healthcare ethics by using our vocabulary to deprive our members the ability to protect their own health. The authors of our text tell us that In all cases, health care communication ethics centers on a good that gives us a why for seeking information, for seeking help, for a reason to fight, for a reason to think about others in the final moments of our own lives (Arnett, Fritz, Bell, 2009, p. 204). This passage is charged with emotion and with passion for the ethics necessary in a difficult time in a communicators life. Its clear from the tone of this chapter that the authors of this text are writing through the loss they are feeling in the absence of their colleague who died during the writing of this book, but their emotional tone lays down an important notion in health care communication ethicsthat the co-communicators will probably not be engaging in neutral communication. Health care ethics exists in a time of deep gravity for many people, and a natural response to this is to succumb to emotion. Optimism is a critical component of health care communication ethics. Not the blind optimism of someone who does not recognize the seriousness of a given situation, but the kind that comes from the recognition that others lives are also complex places that we all occasionally require assistance navigating.

As I mentioned, I am fortunate enough to be healthy (admittedly, a relative term.) There have, however, been a few occasions when I have been ill and have needed help with the basic functions of life. I can remember a particularly horrible case of the flu that kept me bedridden for just over a week. In this time, when moving hurt and my thinking was often clouded by cold medicine and fever, I can remember a friend who came by one day to change my pillow cases. This was a communicative act that transcended the standard how are you feeling conversation (that is so unfruitful when one is ill) and showed compassion in the face of my crud. My friend risked illness to make me, ever so slightly, more comfortable. This act of care, however small, was responsive to my need for fresh pillowcases, a bit of comfort, and a bit of encouragement that my illness was brief. The act was selfless, and reminds me that though the illness was smallthere are people who care and will care when times are trying. We must lead by example in healthcare communication ethics. We must act ethically to those that are ill and those that will be ill. We must act ethically towards those that deserve better health care and health care coverage. We must accept health as a basic human right, and know at all times that the way that we communicate to those who are infirmed live as examples of how we communicate with everyone in need, regardless of situation.