Morality in Leadership: The Key to Success

Wikimedia Commons

Leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. worked against the grain. Their beliefs were a part of a subculture of society, but because of their intellect, ambition, and passion, they brought many of their dreams to fruition, and transformed lives and cultural ideals in the process. I think of the early careers of civil rights leaders like Nelson Mandela who was considered a terrorist and racist, Gandhi who was considered a socialist... How do we know if the non-mainstream decisions we make now, will be good decisions for the future?

If you receive retaliation for your beliefs, does that discourage or encourage you to push even harder to affirm your ideals? This motivation to fight through resistance is great in civil rights cases like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mandela, but what about white supremacists or anarchists? Having a large following is probably the first step to affirming one’s beliefs. Similar to a politician running for office, a large group of people need to believe in what you’re doing and who you are in order for your beliefs to float into the mainstream and become accepted to some degree.  

When I think of all of the successful, sustainable social movements across the world, I believe an accepted morality is the real key to their success (Insert shameless plug for Moral Tribes Prindle Reading Group here).

 

If a movement follows the golden rule (Treat others the way you would like to be treated), it seems to be correct and accepted in its thinking. Those movements that ostracize a group or groups of people tend to be dismantled, even if it takes an extended period of time to do so. So I like to think that the world is actually tending towards equality (Not in a socialist sort of way, but in a…everyone wants happiness sort of way).

My point in all this is that in being a leader, you will make difficult decisions and even question your own beliefs. Sometimes a decision will incite vicious backlash and disapproval, but if it is powered by your belief for equality, which is steeped in universal morality, then it’s the correct decision.

King was an amazing figure in the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, but it took time, audacity, and resilience to transform his dream into tangible change. Our world still fights for racial and gender equality, and struggles with accepting those with fluid or "atypical" sexual orientations. I believe in morality as the fuel behind effective leadership. Universal happiness isn't handed to us; it takes effort and determination, and leaders with value-based judgments who are fighting for equality.

With these thoughts in mind, I want to encourage you to ask yourself or your friends questions like: why is leading through morality so difficult? When might it be a bad idea to lead in this way?

Against her wishes, woman stays on life support

Happy 2014 blog readers! If you’re reading this from the Midwest, I hope you’ve stayed warm and cozy inside during this past week of snow and subzero temperatures. I was really hoping to blog about ethics and the snow, but no particularly interesting topic came to mind. Snow is white, cold, and makes it difficult to get to work. Done. So what’s the first topic of 2014 you ask? Bioethics.

While scanning the New York Times Wednesday, I read a thought-provoking article with the intriguing headline “Pregnant, and Forced to Stay on Life Support”.

Erick Munoz standing next to a photo of himself, Marlise,
and their son Mateo (Star-Telegram/Ron T. Ennis)

Marlise Munoz, a 33-year-old mother living in Fort Worth, TX died this past November after collapsing on her kitchen floor from a blood clot in her lungs. When her husband found her, she was rushed to a local hospital where she was pronounced brain-dead, but kept alive by machines in the intensive care unit. Her family prepared to say their goodbyes, keeping in mind Marlise’s wishes to not be kept on life support if in this situation. I can't imagine their confusion then, when a doctor came into the room and told them that she would continue to stay on life support in compliance with Texas law. Marlise was 14-weeks pregnant.

Under Texas law, a person cannot withdraw or withhold “life-sustaining treatment” from a pregnant patient. But according to the article, there is a difference from being brain-dead (as Marlise was declared) and being in a vegetative state. Brain-dead means that there is no neurological activity, but the organs can be maintained through breathing tubes, whereas brain activity still exists for patients in a coma. Brain-dead is legally dead, and therefore the hospital deciding to keep Marlise alive does not apply to Texas law.

This all brings into question end-of-life care. For the parents of Marlise, Mr. and Mrs. Machado, this is prolonging their agony. I picture them sitting next to their dead daughter whose chest continues to go up and down as oxygen is pumped into her body but whose skin is cold and lifeless. If the hospital continues to support their statement that Marlise is brain-dead, then they have misinterpreted Texas law and must abide by the family’s wishes. This treatment may be causing irreparable damages to the family psychologically.

If this fetus were to go through a full term, and brought from Marlise’s body as a healthy child, would it not be a blessing for the family? Mr. Munoz (Marlise’s husband) is a 26-year-old firefighter working full time and taking care of his 15-month-old son as a single father. Does his situation factor into your opinion of what should happen to the mother or the fetus?

This is a great topic for debate. Is the Texas hospital stepping out of bounds? Should the parents agree to their daughter’s wishes? Would Marlise’s wishes be different if she knew she would die while pregnant? With advanced medical technology, we need to be having these conversations as a member of a family, as a voter or a policy maker to ensure we have the end-of-life care we desire, while easing the pain of the loved ones we leave behind.