Resolving ethical dilemmas

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: justify decisions through rules and facts. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. The code helps apply principles to situations. It does not replace Latvian law or restrict lawful reporting. Public-official duties have particular rules. Examples support clear reasoned decisions.

A dilemma may involve speed, loyalty and impartiality. Urgency does not legalise prohibited conduct. The code helps but complex matters may need competent advice. Reasons must address interests and actual effects.

Apply the following rule: The law covers work-related information about breaches that may harm the public interest. It is not limited to the Directive’s listed EU-law fields. Purely personal grievances and knowingly false information are excluded; sections 2–3 also contain specific limits.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Describe the decision and influences. Identify rules and lawful alternatives. Arrange independent decisions where involved. Record genuine reasons and check the response; records must reflect events. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A manager wants an urgent order from a friend without reasons. The employee explains requirements and proposes a lawful rapid route instead of inventing a later competition. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does a good goal justify invented records? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Records must reflect reality. Find a permitted solution and escalate to the authorised decision-maker when needed.

One mistake to avoid is: justifying an outcome with an invented retrospective story.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically recognised as protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?

Check work context, possible public-interest harm, belief in truth and statutory conditions. A category does not replace sections 1–3 assessment. A personal complaint may also contain a public-interest breach; assess facts rather than title. Record reasons and necessary clarification.