Whistleblower of Kirsten Springs

A small town, perpetually plagued by chronic unemployment, has recently discovered that its springs have therapeutic qualities. Hoping to transform the town, a Health Institute is developing the town into a destination spa when a doctor on the Institute's board discovers that the springs are contaminated. Naively thinking he will be greeted as a hero for catching the contamination early and safeguarding the public health, he quickly meets opposition because his report would jeopardize the town's economy--jobs, cost of clean-up, property values, community public image. The town works to suppress his report, the industry that is the source of the pollution challenges his scientific findings, the would-be hero is now cast as the town's enemy, and his plan to shut down the springs to correct the problem is rejected.

The “case” is a fictional one presented in Henrik Ibsen's play An Enemy of the People; nevertheless, it raises all-to-familiar ethical concerns: the dilemma when the values of ecological and public health conflict with those of livelihoods, community prosperity, and interests of big business; the dilemma of the whistle blower whose truth may put him at odds with economic and political agendas and the perceived general good; the short-sighted, willing blindness of the community to the evidence and to an ethical responsibility that conflicts with material self-interest.

In a variation of narrative ethics, Ibsen's “case” richly illustrates complexities of decision making involving the intersection of health and environmental issues with economic, political, and social concerns.