Whistle blowing for?

Author C. Fred Alford in his findings, discover's many important reoccuring themes in the whistleblower stories that he shares with us in his book. The first theme is this idea that the stories told be the whistleblowers are mellow in nature, that is to say they are not very dramatic in nature. There is drama to be found in the chaos of everyday organizational life. Secondly, the the victim is usually not immediately fired from position held; They are slowly demoralized, piece by piece from their office, so the agency/organization doesnt look as though they are responding in a form of retaliating against the whistleblower. This form of demoralizing leds to the act of private disobedience and psychological trauma. Next, another reoccuring theme is that almost all whistleblowers neglect to use the media as a tool for voicing their cause until they were fired. Lastly, most of the whistleblowers held positions in the governmental branches, and private sectors. In both these organizational structures, the issues of termination is key. These are the themes that seem haunt whistleblowers alike. I find it rather intriguing that almost all whistleblowers know they are doing the right thing, but when asked if they would do it again, they say they wouldn't. As many whistleblowers stress," Do it to save lives or dont do it"(34), so is this the under rule of thumb to use/code of ethics for doing what is right? How does one know the outcome of the circumstance? Are life's even at stake? How many lives will be saved by blowing the whistle? These are questions that maybe dont have immediate answers, or are even answerable. It all comes down, to doing what you feel is right, I think, even if it may casue oneself hardship unthinkable. In sum, you go with your gut feeling, in decision making sometimes.