Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead
Well, if enough people thinks it is wrong, then change the law.
But then you'll have a whole host of other issues ... like issues with telling people in a free society what job they can and can't work in once they retire.
"Sorry ma'am, you used to work as a nurse, you aren't allowed to be hired as a consultant for the medical industry." etc.
Good luck changing the law when it's the law makers and law enforcers that you're trying to create laws for. Look at all the lobbying reform laws that have been brought up in the US and shot down by the lawmakers, the same lawmakers who then get a nice cushy job at a lobbying firm or a company that hired lobbyists.
There's a clear difference between the example you gave and the case of judges and lawmakers. A nurse is not making a ruling, they are not creating or enforcing laws and judgments that can help or hinder a company and a large swath of people. All a nurse is doing is treating someone in the doctor prescribed fashion. If a nurse was offered a job after helping someone get better, there would be nothing unethical about accepting it because there is no appearance of bribery or wrongdoing for doing the job she was supposed to do.
If you're going to use a medical analogy, it would be like a hospital medical director cutting the quality of care for patients, making it harder for them to get proper treatment (even impossible in some cases), then accepting a position on the Board of Directors after the hospital posts record profits as a result of the director's actions. That would be a clear ethical violation according to the AMA
. In that case, the doctor should, at the very least, be censured, even if they did it because they thought that the patients were still receiving adequate care, not because they were promised a position on the board if they increased the profit.
It's the same with the judge in this case. The judge's actions give the appearance of an unethical action in the trial. Whether or not any unethical behavior occurred on the part of Samsung is not at question. In the US, this sort of thing is not allowed because judges who are on the verge of retiring can change their ruling not based on the arguments provided and the law or even based on promises of employment, but based on an implicit understanding that ruling in a companies favor might get them a cushy, well paid gig from the company when they retire.Edited by nubbinator - 2/28/13 at 3:48pm