The Leaked Sterilization Logs
You edit a 48,000-circulation city daily. A 58-year-old surgical nurse gives you 300 pages of internal incident reports documenting 11 unreported surgical-site infections over 14 months, plus sterilization logs that the chief of surgery appears to have altered. She will hand them over on one condition: that you never name her, never describe the documents as internal records, and never publish anything that could trace the leak to her unit. She is six years from a vested pension and expects to be fired. Hospital counsel has written that publication will 'irreparably harm' patient trust and drive away referrals; your publisher wants the story in tomorrow's paper. You have also learned that a rival station holds similar documents and will air a report in five days. Your newsroom's ethics code says sources must be protected and that the paper should publish information the public needs 'without regard to consequences.'
1. Does the rival station's plan to publish in five days change what you owe the nurse? Reason it through.
Read the worked answer
Inevitability changes consequences, not obligations, and the two should be kept apart. On the duty to the source: the nurse's condition created a promise, and a promise's force does not depend on whether keeping it still delivers the benefit she expected. Kantian reasoning makes this sharp - breaking the promise because the story will surface anyway treats her as a means to publication, the same logic that would let you promise anything to anyone and defect whenever defection became convenient. On the duty to readers: five days is a real interval in which patients could be exposed to improperly sterilized instruments, and a consequentialist will say that interval has weight. On the code's public-interest test: it is independent of a competitor's timetable. What the rival's plan actually changes is timing and control. Publishing first, carefully, may protect her better than a television hit that names her unit. Use the rival's deadline to publish sooner and more carefully, not to renegotiate the promise.
2. Contrast a Kantian and a Millian analysis of the promise made to the nurse.
Read the worked answer
Kant: universalize the maxim 'I will make a confidentiality promise I may break when someone else is about to publish.' No source would ever accept such a promise, so the practice of confidential sourcing - on which the paper depends - collapses. The nurse is used as a mere means if you trade her job and pension for a story you would run regardless. The duty holds whatever the consequences; the only live question is whether a competing duty to warn patients makes the promise impossible to keep, and here it does not, because you can warn patients without exposing her. Mill: judge the act by its expected consequences for everyone affected, or better, ask which standing rule maximizes welfare. Patients protected sooner, her livelihood, the paper's credibility, and the chilling effect on future whistleblowers all enter. A rule that protects sources even under competitive pressure probably maximizes utility, because the deterrent effect on future leaks outweighs a five-day head start. Both converge on keeping the core promise, for different reasons: Kant because the promise binds, Mill because a rule of keeping it is more useful than the exception.
3. Recommend a course of action, and identify the strongest objection to your recommendation.
Read the worked answer
Publish tomorrow, on terms that preserve the promise's core. Never name her, never quote or cite her, and do not describe the documents in a way that fingerprints her unit; attribute the pattern to records reviewed by the newspaper. Strip metadata, retype key passages, and confirm nothing to anyone beyond what the publisher strictly needs. Give the hospital a same-day right of reply with specific written questions. Lead with the altered sterilization logs and the 11 infections, because that is the fact patients need and the fact the hospital cannot explain away. Separately, tell the nurse the rival is about to air; concealing that from her would be a second deception. The strongest objection: any story with this much detail may let hospital counsel identify the unit no matter how you write it, so the promise cannot fully be kept. That is genuine, and the partial mitigation is to hold the most identifying log excerpts until the rival airs, while publishing the infection count now.