**12. The right to make decisions over others' life and death**

As a final point in the question of risk taking, we must consider what gives any person or group of people the right to make decisions which will have life and death consequences for those who partake in the actions that will take place as a result of that decision-making. It has been argued that astronauts already knew the risks of space travel when they undertake such an adventurous role. Again, this is to confuse the general unknown risk of space travel with the specifically foreknown risk of launching with an unsafe part. It is also to ignore the fact that two civilians were aboard in addition to the five astronauts.

What if we consider the question of decision making over life and death when the one involved is oneself? Suppose, for example, the astronauts and the civilians had been told of the dangers. It is entirely possible that the astronauts would still have chosen to launch. Even if the decision were placed in the hands of the Captain of the astronauts on that launch and he was fully informed of the dangers, should he have the right to decide if the launch should proceed? In a war, a general does decide if troops should engage in battle. There, of

<sup>32</sup> *Ibid*., p. 171.

course, there may be a set of circumstances when something very valuable (the lives of one's countrymen for example) must be protected. But, here, we are still considering the scenario where there is nothing great to be gained – such as protecting one's countrymen from destruction - by proceeding with the timing of this launch..

On the Very Idea of Risk Management: Lessons from the Space Shuttle *Challenger* 149

*an unsafe vehicle*. However, being young, adventurous and headstrong, they may not be able to understand that the risk that they are taking is an unnecessary one. *It should not be their decision. It should be the decision of the engineers.* The managers, in this situation, have the responsibility to follow the opinions of their experts. That some scholar/commentators have argued some of these experts concurred that it was safe to launch or they questioned the senior engineer's warnings about the safety to launch is based upon uninformed, unsupported or prejudicial evidence. This issue is discussed in detail in the author's *Saving Human Lives: Lessons in Management Ethics*. The prejudicial evidence is examined in Robert

Ultimately, the deciders, those who are taking the risk of other people's lives in their own hands, have the responsibility of *not risking other people's lives.* It is as simple as this. *There is no such thing as an ethical choice to risk another person's life, including one's own, when it is not necessary.* If managers do so on account of cost-saving, they are making unethical choices if

We should not leave the discussion of this one classical example without reiterating that the astronauts and the civilians aboard could have easily been provided with proper space suits, parachutes and ejection chairs. No one died as a result of the explosion. Horrifically, all died because of too fast a collision with the ocean. All were breathing until ocean contact. *It is important to emphasize that the crew and the passengers were alive, were conscious after the spectacular explosion.* As pointed out above, during their three minute descent, some crew members had actually activated and used their emergency air packs.33 That such a provision of space suits, parachutes and ejection chairs were considered and then rejected by management is another risky decision that resulted not in the safe abortion of the mission, but in the deaths of every person aboard. Earlier spacecraft had been equipped with launch escape systems, thus proving that escape systems were not only possible, but were actual. The decision not to equip the Challenger with an abort system was not a decision based on possibility, but a decision based on policy.34 This death, or should it be said, manslaughter of the astronauts and passengers, was not the result of high-risk technology, but the result of a cost-benefit analysis that took into account the benefit of profit, not the benefit of life. This horrific outcome was the result of risky and unethical decision making, not the result of improper risk management. This risk did not have to exist in the first place. It was a management decision that decided not to include these safety precautions: *it was risky decision making*, not a lack of risk management.

Classic examples of risk management would appear to be the actions of fund managers. Under the arguments advanced above, if one likens one's funds as the means to one's livelihood, one should never take risk with other people's money. While this would appear to be impossible without doing away with capitalism altogether, there is one interesting counter example that should give pause to one's thought. There is one hedge fund company

we define the basic principle of ethics to value human life as the highest priority.

Elliott Allinson, *Saving Human Lives: Lessons in Management Ethics*.

(All later missions were equipped with such life-saving devices).

**13. Risking funds** 

<sup>33</sup> *Ibid*., p. 188. 34 *Ibid*.

What if we leave the decision to launch to the astronauts themselves and make sure that they are fully informed of the dangers? (For the sake of this discussion, we except the case that there are two civilian passengers aboard). The crew, who perceive themselves as heroes, are likely to decide to vote to launch. When the author had the privilege to personally interview Kathyrn Cordell Thornton, the celebrated astronaut who was part of the 100 strong astronaut corps at the time of the *Challenger*, and then Director of the Center for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education at the University of Virginia, and the author of this chapter was privileged to be accompanied in this interview by the distinguished business ethicist, Patricia Werhane, we discussed this very issue. The author of this chapter vividly recalls Thornton saying that, 'if these astronauts had refused to go up, there would be 100 others behind them waiting to take their place.' This is not surprising when one considers the peer expectations of that kind of group. There is a psychological expectation that they should be fearless. This is no different from football players going into the field with a head injury. The question now has become, does one have a right to take a risk with one's own life? One could say that this is a matter of individual choice. But, is it?

One can consider the choice of a circus performer who decides to risk her or his life by performing on a high wire with no safety net. Should this be a matter of individual choice? Suppose the circus performer has overestimated her or his abilities? Again, the possibility of the incidence may be low, but the consequences are fatal. The performer is placing a greater value on the spectacle value of a performance without safety than on the value of her or his life. Should such a decision be left in the hands of an individual performer? Or, should such a decision be overridden, if necessary, by the director of the circus?

Do we ever have a right to make life and death decisions that affect our own life and death? Or, is the value of life so precious that it should never be risked unless there is an absolute necessity? If we take the latter position, no one has the right to take such a risk with one's own life except under the conditions of absolute necessity; e.g., as in the case of self-defense. *The point here is that the ethics of the preciousness of life is valued over the concept of absolute choice.* 

The case becomes more clear when we consider the circumstance of intended suicide. Assuming a situation in which the intended is not the victim of an incurable disease and is not making a forced choice (such as when a Nazi may say to a Jew, 'Kill yourself now or I will kill your child'), does anyone have a right to gratuitously take her or his own life? While it may be thought that this is still a matter of individual choice and one can point to the custom of ancient Romans and Japanese in this regard, one must remember that in the case of ancient Rome and Japanese tradition, it was a case of personal honor and not merely gratuitous. In the case of the ancient Romans and the Japanese, these honorable suicides were not sanctioned because the individuals involved were desperately unhappy with their lives.

In the case of the astronauts – leaving aside the civilians, the secondary school teacher and the journalist who have no such honor code – *they do not lose their honor if they refuse to board*  *an unsafe vehicle*. However, being young, adventurous and headstrong, they may not be able to understand that the risk that they are taking is an unnecessary one. *It should not be their decision. It should be the decision of the engineers.* The managers, in this situation, have the responsibility to follow the opinions of their experts. That some scholar/commentators have argued some of these experts concurred that it was safe to launch or they questioned the senior engineer's warnings about the safety to launch is based upon uninformed, unsupported or prejudicial evidence. This issue is discussed in detail in the author's *Saving Human Lives: Lessons in Management Ethics*. The prejudicial evidence is examined in Robert Elliott Allinson, *Saving Human Lives: Lessons in Management Ethics*.

Ultimately, the deciders, those who are taking the risk of other people's lives in their own hands, have the responsibility of *not risking other people's lives.* It is as simple as this. *There is no such thing as an ethical choice to risk another person's life, including one's own, when it is not necessary.* If managers do so on account of cost-saving, they are making unethical choices if we define the basic principle of ethics to value human life as the highest priority.

We should not leave the discussion of this one classical example without reiterating that the astronauts and the civilians aboard could have easily been provided with proper space suits, parachutes and ejection chairs. No one died as a result of the explosion. Horrifically, all died because of too fast a collision with the ocean. All were breathing until ocean contact. *It is important to emphasize that the crew and the passengers were alive, were conscious after the spectacular explosion.* As pointed out above, during their three minute descent, some crew members had actually activated and used their emergency air packs.33 That such a provision of space suits, parachutes and ejection chairs were considered and then rejected by management is another risky decision that resulted not in the safe abortion of the mission, but in the deaths of every person aboard. Earlier spacecraft had been equipped with launch escape systems, thus proving that escape systems were not only possible, but were actual. The decision not to equip the Challenger with an abort system was not a decision based on possibility, but a decision based on policy.34 This death, or should it be said, manslaughter of the astronauts and passengers, was not the result of high-risk technology, but the result of a cost-benefit analysis that took into account the benefit of profit, not the benefit of life. This horrific outcome was the result of risky and unethical decision making, not the result of improper risk management. This risk did not have to exist in the first place. It was a management decision that decided not to include these safety precautions: *it was risky decision making*, not a lack of risk management. (All later missions were equipped with such life-saving devices).

#### **13. Risking funds**

Classic examples of risk management would appear to be the actions of fund managers. Under the arguments advanced above, if one likens one's funds as the means to one's livelihood, one should never take risk with other people's money. While this would appear to be impossible without doing away with capitalism altogether, there is one interesting counter example that should give pause to one's thought. There is one hedge fund company

148 Risk Management – Current Issues and Challenges

destruction - by proceeding with the timing of this launch..

a decision be overridden, if necessary, by the director of the circus?

because the individuals involved were desperately unhappy with their lives.

Do we ever have a right to make life and death decisions that affect our own life and death? Or, is the value of life so precious that it should never be risked unless there is an absolute necessity? If we take the latter position, no one has the right to take such a risk with one's own life except under the conditions of absolute necessity; e.g., as in the case of self-defense. *The point here is that the ethics of the preciousness of life is valued over the concept of absolute choice.*  The case becomes more clear when we consider the circumstance of intended suicide. Assuming a situation in which the intended is not the victim of an incurable disease and is not making a forced choice (such as when a Nazi may say to a Jew, 'Kill yourself now or I will kill your child'), does anyone have a right to gratuitously take her or his own life? While it may be thought that this is still a matter of individual choice and one can point to the custom of ancient Romans and Japanese in this regard, one must remember that in the case of ancient Rome and Japanese tradition, it was a case of personal honor and not merely gratuitous. In the case of the ancient Romans and the Japanese, these honorable suicides were not sanctioned

In the case of the astronauts – leaving aside the civilians, the secondary school teacher and the journalist who have no such honor code – *they do not lose their honor if they refuse to board* 

course, there may be a set of circumstances when something very valuable (the lives of one's countrymen for example) must be protected. But, here, we are still considering the scenario where there is nothing great to be gained – such as protecting one's countrymen from

What if we leave the decision to launch to the astronauts themselves and make sure that they are fully informed of the dangers? (For the sake of this discussion, we except the case that there are two civilian passengers aboard). The crew, who perceive themselves as heroes, are likely to decide to vote to launch. When the author had the privilege to personally interview Kathyrn Cordell Thornton, the celebrated astronaut who was part of the 100 strong astronaut corps at the time of the *Challenger*, and then Director of the Center for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education at the University of Virginia, and the author of this chapter was privileged to be accompanied in this interview by the distinguished business ethicist, Patricia Werhane, we discussed this very issue. The author of this chapter vividly recalls Thornton saying that, 'if these astronauts had refused to go up, there would be 100 others behind them waiting to take their place.' This is not surprising when one considers the peer expectations of that kind of group. There is a psychological expectation that they should be fearless. This is no different from football players going into the field with a head injury. The question now has become, does one have a right to take a risk with one's own life? One could say that this is a matter of individual choice. But, is it? One can consider the choice of a circus performer who decides to risk her or his life by performing on a high wire with no safety net. Should this be a matter of individual choice? Suppose the circus performer has overestimated her or his abilities? Again, the possibility of the incidence may be low, but the consequences are fatal. The performer is placing a greater value on the spectacle value of a performance without safety than on the value of her or his life. Should such a decision be left in the hands of an individual performer? Or, should such

<sup>33</sup> *Ibid*., p. 188.

<sup>34</sup> *Ibid*.

on Wall Street that guarantees any loss of any client's investment up to four million US dollars.35 How does this company do this? While the author of this chapter cannot answer this question, it would be assumed that this company is sufficiently profitable such that it can make this guarantee. What is notable is not that it is capable of making this guarantee; what is notable is that it makes the guarantee. By making such a guarantee this company is making the statement that it regards the potential loss of its client's funds as completely unacceptable. This standard of ethics is apparently commercially viable. This is an example, not of practicing risk management in the context in which it is most commonly accepted (that of a fund manager), but rather of practicing not taking risk in the first place (with other people's money).

On the Very Idea of Risk Management: Lessons from the Space Shuttle *Challenger* 151

This first condition, the prior presence of red-flagged warnings that meet the above criteria in terms of source (knowledgeable expert witness), form (red-flagged), and content (spelling out the specific flaw in the part), to the best of my research and knowledge, have never been met. The Hindsight Objection is always made as a purely hypothetical objection without any evidence for its truth value ever put forth. In the case of space flights (this example is used because it is best known to the author), one must show that there were other launches in which the senior scientist issued repeated red-flagged alerts and all of the engineers and managers voting on the planned launch voted unanimously against the launch. Has anyone

The second major objection is that even if one could offer an example of a flight which met the equivalent set of warnings that were issued in the case of the *Challenger*, one might miss the point that such warnings are not intended to be construed to be 100% reliable predictions concerning the particular flight in question. Such warnings are not meant to be on the level not of, if this flight will take place, but of when this flight, or a similar flight, takes place, such a likelihood of such a flight ending in disaster is a horrific eventuality. If the warnings are not justified on the basis of one flight, they might well be on the basis of the third or the seventh flight. When one leaves the auto mechanic's shop with faulty brakes, the service manager might warn the customer that the brakes may fail. If the brakes do not fail on the first hill, that does not mean that her or his warning was without value. They may fail on the ninth hill. Thus, even if one could find a case in which dire warnings that fit the above criteria were present and the flight or sail went without incident, that would not

It is informative to reflect on the fact that Boisjoly's warnings cover both the likelihood of the possibility of the *incidence* of the occurrence of the horrific failure of the mission and the *consequence* of the death of the crew and passengers. Thus, both aspects of risk are covered: the possibility of the likelihood of the incidence and the gravity of the consequence. This example of risk taking fits both the criteria of the likelihood of the possibility of the incidence and the enormity of the consequences. Such risk taking is entirely incompetent and unconscionable. *That it need not be restricted in its eventual occurrence in this flight is evidenced by the fact that it was warned against eight years previous.* The resistance to launch on this flight was based on the fact that the weather conditions compounded the already existent risk. *The problem was that the case of the decision to launch the Challenger was an iconic case where it was thought that risk could be managed. In other words, to some extent, the very concept of risk management was at fault.* A better example of a safeguard would have been never to have installed this unsafe part in the first place. That would have been an example not of risk management, but rather of not taking risk in the first place. (After that fatal flight, one of the original designs that was originally rejected was chosen to be used). More obviously, *not launching in adverse weather conditions would be an example of not taking risk*. *Launching in dangerous weather conditions is an example of attempting to manage risk*. It comes under the thinking of, 'the weather is not good, but we can manage it'. It is not clear what this means. It seems to suggest the belief that 'the weather is not good, but we can chance it.' 'Risk management', when properly analyzed, seems to be equivalent to 'risk chancing' or gambling'. The eminent Nobel laureate physicist, Richard Feynman likened the decision to launch the *Challenger* space shuttle to playing Russian roulette. The proper way of

ever brought forth any evidence in support of the Hindsight Objection claim?

prove that all such flights were to be considered safe.
