Re: CHP "...standards for ethical conduct..." -Reply

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

G'day 

Ron Kathren wrote;
>Wes -- Well put.  Ron
In support of Wes Dunn's comments:
>> This [Rich's comment] is obviously a false arguement.  The
>>purposes and activities of the AAHP is not necessarily the same as
>>how those purposes and activities are carried out OR the purposes
>>and activities of the officers of the AAHP.

The proposed code of ethics demands that CHPs support the academy's
activities. Insofar as certification is sometimes a job requirement
and insofar as CHPs have gone to a great deal of time, effort and
expense to become certified, this proposed code of ethics should be
taken seriously. It is perfectly reasonable to insist that the
Academy be very specific as to the activities we are being required
to support, otherwise we are writing a blank check.  So I ask: 

"What specific activities does the code state we are required to
support?" 

I have no problem with someone distinguishing in his/her own mind the
difference between an activity and how an activity is carried out,
but Rich's interpretation that an activity is something that actually
takes place, is equally valid. Why not refer to these activities
(which Wes and Ron interpret in a passive sense) as goals or
functions and specify what the darn things are?

My biggest problems with the proposed code of ethics are that it is
frequently ambiguous and primarily consists of positions that sound
nice but are little more than feel good statements. It should be
brief, to the point and unambiguously say what it means. If
reasonable people can strongly disagree as to what the meaning of the
code is, the thing needs to be rewritten and this appears to be the
case.

N'est ce pas?  ;-)

Paul Frame