A lead contamination of the tap water in Flint, Michigan has become a national scandal as in 2014, state appointed emergency manager decided to switch from the Lake Huron supplied water to the highly corrosive and polluted water from the Flint River, without treatment to control the corrosion of the lead pipes (Olson and Fedinick). Citizens soon started to complain about dark coloured, foul tasting, smelly water that residents claim to cause rashes and hair loss. The high levels of lead found in water are harmful for citizens, especially children and can cause serious, irreversible damage to developing brains (Olson and Fedinick). There has been a significant ethical debate surrounding the idea of who bears the responsibility for inequality
…show more content…
In response to the Flint, Michigan crisis, Shrader-Frechette would say that if citizens can reduce injustice in pollution-related threats to health, then they should. She discusses the idea of deliberative democracy which is a practical set of processes and practices through which citizens can reach consensus about justice (Shrader-Frechette 9). She mentions that citizens can reduce injustice in pollution-related threats to health by policing private interest science, whistleblowing, and using tools of democracy. These democratic tools can include collecting information, dispersing pamphlets, lobbying, and having speeches/talks, meetings, and debates (Shrader-Frechette 9). I agree with Shrader-Frechette in the sense that those affected by the inequality or specifically the residents of Flint have the ability to try and prevent injustices of the water pollution. It is important for those at risk to take action and try to prevent the injustice and inequality that is occurring. Residents of Flint, Michigan did use tools of democracy and fought against the inequality by making their issue public. This allowed for a series of actions to take place in order to respond to the injustice and inequality in the health risks of the water pollution. Without the citizens of Flint responding to the injustice, the government and the EPA would not have tried to change the situation that was occurring (Harris). Even though the situation has not resolved, the citizens of Flint did try to prevent this injustice and this case is making
In response to the Flint, Michigan crisis, Shrader-Frechette would say that if citizens can reduce injustice in pollution-related threats to health, then they should. She discusses the idea of deliberative democracy which is a practical set of processes and practices through which citizens can reach consensus about justice (Shrader-Frechette 9). She mentions that citizens can reduce injustice in pollution-related threats to health by policing private interest science, whistleblowing, and using tools of democracy. These democratic tools can include collecting information, dispersing pamphlets, lobbying, and having speeches/talks, meetings, and debates (Shrader-Frechette 9). I agree with Shrader-Frechette in the sense that those affected by the inequality or specifically the residents of Flint have the ability to try and prevent injustices of the water pollution. It is important for those at risk to take action and try to prevent the injustice and inequality that is occurring. Residents of Flint, Michigan did use tools of democracy and fought against the inequality by making their issue public. This allowed for a series of actions to take place in order to respond to the injustice and inequality in the health risks of the water pollution. Without the citizens of Flint responding to the injustice, the government and the EPA would not have tried to change the situation that was occurring (Harris). Even though the situation has not resolved, the citizens of Flint did try to prevent this injustice and this case is making