PUBH 8132 Week 10 Ethics Memo Example

Course	PUBH 8132 Communication and Social Marketing Strategies for Public Health Leaders
Week	Week 10
Paper type	Ethics memo
Length	About 610 words, 4 pages
Format	Memo, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 8132 Week 10

Memorandum

To: Health Officer, Brightwater County

From: Fellow in Social Marketing

Date: Month Day, Year

Re: Ethical review of the backyard chick strategy before approval

The Standard

Andreasen (1994) defined social marketing as borrowing commercial marketing methods for programs that seek to change what people voluntarily do, for the sake of their own well-being and the wider society's. Two elements of that definition set an ethical test: the behavior must remain voluntary, and the aim must be the audience's welfare, not the agency's or a partner's interest. This memo tests the garage brooding strategy for First-Flock Families against that standard and names four problems you would own by approving it.

What this page is doingStating the standard first gives the health officer a fixed measure for each problem.

Problem 1: A Commercial Partner's Interest

The strategy sells a discounted brooder kit through farm supply stores. The stores gain sales and goodwill, and staff ask families where they will keep chicks, which could become a sales script. If store staff push the kit to families who already have adequate setups, the strategy would serve the stores more than the families. Safeguard: the county subsidy applies only to families who say they planned indoor brooding, staff receive a script focused on the question rather than the sale, and the county reviews the partnership after one season.

Problem 2: Children as Targets and Messengers

The 4-H component and visiting-hour cards are designed partly so children will persuade parents. Using children to influence parents raises questions of consent and pressure, and materials aimed at children can frighten them if they hint at illness. Safeguard: children's materials will describe a fun routine, with no illness imagery, and 4-H leaders will present the routine as a choice families make together.

Problem 3: Blame When Children Get Sick

Messages implying that good parents keep chicks outside could lead parents of a sick child to feel blamed, and could discourage them from seeking care or reporting illness. Safeguard: no materials will imply fault; messages will present garage brooding as the easier, cleaner option, consistent with the encouraging tone in the creative brief. National data show that live poultry Salmonella mostly affects children and that keeping birds indoors is common among those sickened (Basler et al., 2016), but these facts will be used to guide the offer, not to shame families.

Problem 4: Families the Offer Leaves Out

The kit assumes a garage or shed. Renters and families in apartments or townhouses cannot accept the offer, yet their children are equally at risk. A strategy that serves only homeowners with outbuildings may widen existing gaps. Safeguard: store staff will give families without outdoor space a separate card advising them to wait to buy chicks until suitable space is ready, and the county will explore a loaner brooder program with the 4-H office for the following season.

Voluntariness

The strategy uses discounts, convenience and social support, not penalties, and families remain free to keep chicks indoors. It therefore stays within the voluntary behavior Andreasen's definition requires, which distinguishes it from a regulatory approach such as restricting chick sales, an option Rothschild (1999) would reserve for those whom neither information nor an offer moves.

Who Should Review the Strategy

Because the health department designed the strategy, it is poorly placed to judge its fairness alone. A small review group, including a parent from the segment, a 4-H leader and someone from a tenant organization, would read the materials before launch and again after the season.

Recommendation

Approve the strategy with the four safeguards, and require a short review after the first season that asks families, store staff and 4-H leaders whether any of the four problems arose.

References

Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: Its definition and domain. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 108-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569401300109

Basler, C., Nguyen, T.-A., Anderson, T. C., Hancock, T., & Behravesh, C. B. (2016). Outbreaks of human Salmonella infections associated with live poultry, United States, 1990-2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 22(10), 1705-1711. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2210.150765

Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issue behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 24-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300404

Reading the PUBH 8132 Week 10 instructions

An ethics memo here means reviewing a proposed strategy for ethical problems before a leader approves it. Prompts often require a stated standard, such as Andreasen's definition or a professional code, identification of specific concerns, safeguards for each and a recommendation. Most instructors cap this memo at a few pages. Instructors reward memos that find concrete problems in the strategy as designed, including conflicts with commercial partners, effects on children, risk of blame and equity, and propose practical safeguards rather than abandoning the strategy. Memos that discuss ethics only in general terms, or that find no problems, typically earn less credit. Some instructors require students to cite a professional code of ethics alongside the definition.

How the PUBH 8132 Week 10 example is put together

The memo states its standard first. Four sections each describe one problem, explain why it matters and propose a safeguard: a commercial partner's interest, children as targets, blame and exclusion. A section confirms the strategy remains voluntary, contrasting it with regulation. Another proposes an outside review group including a parent and a tenant organization. The memo ends with a recommendation for approval with safeguards and a post-season review. Each problem section ends with a safeguard that can be checked after the season. The voluntariness section explains why regulation was not chosen. An outside review group is proposed so the designers do not judge fairness alone.

Reading the PUBH 8132 Week 10 rubric

Graders assess whether the standard is applied accurately, whether problems are specific to the strategy and whether safeguards are practical. Credit is highest for identifying risks a casual reader would miss, such as staff turning a health question into a sales script. Equity concerns should be addressed with concrete steps. Recognizing the limits of the designer's own judgment, by proposing outside review, shows maturity. A recommendation stated in one sentence tends to lift the score. Memos that propose safeguards specific enough to audit, such as limiting the subsidy to families who planned indoor brooding, show practical ethics. Graders value attention to children's experience of persuasive materials. A recommendation that pairs approval with a review shows the leader will keep ethical questions open.

Common PUBH 8132 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Students often write ethics sections that praise their own strategy. Look for who gains besides the audience, who could be pressured, who could feel blamed and who is left out. Propose one safeguard for each. Ask someone outside the project to review it. Send your strategy summary for an ethics memo that tests it. Write each safeguard so someone could check whether it was followed. Include at least one voice from outside your team. Revisit the ethics review after the campaign runs, not only before. Ask who would complain about the strategy, and why, before anyone else does. Give the leader a clear list of conditions that would make you withdraw your support for the strategy.

Get a PUBH 8132 Week 10 example written to your instructions

Supply the strategy your section is evaluating, the prompt and the rubric, and the memo weighs that strategy against a standard you name or leave to the desk. Expect the first within 24 to 48 hours, with no fee attached. Program, owners and disclosure rules here are simplified composites, and the memo is not legal advice.

More PUBH 8132 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PUBH 8132 Week 10 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 8132 Week 10 sample paper?

The complete Week 10 ethics memo sits above, testing a backyard chick strategy against Andreasen's definition.

What is Andreasen's definition of social marketing?

Using commercial marketing methods to influence voluntary behavior for the audience's own welfare and society's.

What ethical problem does the farm store partnership raise?

Store staff could turn the health question into a sales pitch for families who do not need the kit.

How does the strategy avoid blaming parents?

Materials present garage brooding as the easier, cleaner option and never imply fault for illness.

How are families without garages treated?

They receive advice to wait to buy chicks until suitable space is ready, and a loaner program is explored.