Grace Marshall

“The Ethicist” Answers the Dumbest Question Yet…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Sure, Prof. Appiah answers the question from “Name Withheld” correctly, because if he didn’t, the New York Times would have to send its long-time author of its weekly ethics advice column to Madam Louisa’s Home for the Addled and Bewildered. But why did he feel he had to answer such an easy question at all? Slow week for the ol’ mailbag, Kwame?

A wife worried about the fact that her husband is sedentary, fat, and getting fatter asked if it was wrong to try to get him to take affirmative steps to lose some weight. “As we both approach 50,” she writes, “I worry that his B.M.I., which is 30, and his B.R.I. (body roundness index, a measure of abdominal fat) are high (he can’t even button some of his shirts around the middle), which could lead to other health issues. I’ve already tried encouraging him to move more and eat better, but I can’t schedule every one of my workouts for us to exercise together, and he dislikes some of the routines I do, anyway. He’s also very sensitive about his weight.”

“Is it wrong for me to try to get him to take Ozempic?,” she finally asks. “I’m hoping that losing weight will help boost his energy levels, which might lead to more self-care. I know it’s not my body, and I’m not his doctor, but as his wife I also know it will fall to me to care for him if health issues arise.”

Ignore her concentration on Ozempic; she’s not asking about the risks involved with that medication or about the perils of quick fixes. She’s asking if it is wrong (this is The Ethicist she’s writing to) for a spouse to try to get the man she has vowed to love and to cherish to be responsible and take care of himself before it’s too late. Ozempic, Weight Watchers, jogging, whatever: how can a wife’s diligent efforts to somehow convince her husband to get healthier be wrong, as in “unethical”?

Continue reading →

Wow, Look at All the Nice People and Respectable Organizations Profiting From Listerine Killing Alcoholics!

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I last posted “The Amazing Mouthwash Deception: Helping Alcoholics Relapse For Profit” in March of 2024, about a week after my wife Grace died suddenly. Her death was almost certainly a direct consequence of her alcoholism, which she frequently serviced through the surreptitious consumption of alcohol-containing mouthwash, usually Listerine. I was not planning on re-posting the piece so soon afterwards, but today I discovered the weird story of how botched contract drafting in 1881 resulted in Johnson & Johnson having to pay six dollars for every 2,016 ounces of Listerine sold, (the equivalent to 144 14-oz. bottles) to Listerine’s many royalty holders. Even though the royalties have been split, sold and traded, they are still worth a lot of money because Listerine is the best selling mouthwash (and secret alcoholic beverage) in the world. You can read the whole, strange tale here , but what matters ethically is this: among the organizations making money off of this deadly stuff are…

  • Wellesley College
  • The American Bible Society
  • The Salvation Army
  • The Rockefeller Foundation
  • The Bell Telephone Company

…and the Catholic Archdiocese of New York owned a 50% stake in Listerine royalties for nearly two decades, making almost $13 million over 16 years.

Shame on all of them. As I first explained in 2010 in a post that has been read over 50,000 times (it’s still not enough), Listerine is a destructive resource for alcoholics, and that use represents an untold, but definitely large, percentage of Listerine sales. The companies that have owned Listerine have deliberately maintained the deception that it can’t be guzzled, and the deception benefits their huge market of addicts, and of course, the companies, their shareholders, and royalty owners.

In my 2016 introduction to the post, I wrote in part, “Most of all, I am revolted that what I increasingly have come to believe is an intentional, profit-motivated deception by manufacturers continues, despite their knowledge that their product is killing alcoholics and destroying families. I know proof would be difficult, but there have been successful class action lawsuits with millions in punitive damage settlements for less despicable conduct. Somewhere, there must be an employee or executive who acknowledges that the makers of mouthwash with alcohol know their product is being swallowed rather than swished, and are happy to profit from it….People are killing themselves right under our noses, and we are being thrown of by the minty smell of their breath.”

And now I know that all sorts of nice people and admirable organizations profit from their deaths.

Once again, here is “The Amazing Mouthwash Deception: Helping Alcoholics Relapse For Profit,” dedicated, as it always will be, to brilliant, beautiful, kind, loving—and dead—- Grace Bowen Marshall:

Continue reading →

Dead Wife Condolences Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Consider this a further reflection on the matters explored in this post, written just two days after my wife Grace died suddenly of causes undetermined.

The past two months have been a series of revelations. People’s responses to a personal tragedy befalling someone else illustrate a lot about them, society, and human nature generally.

Such moments are when true friends show their character. I wrote earlier about my friend Tom Fuller jumping into his car and driving the ten hours from Connecticut to Alexandria even as I told him not to. Tom checked into a hotel and gave me desperately needed emotional support and expert assistance—he’s a lawyer, tax specialist and obsessively organized individual in sharp contrast to me—for five days. My sister, with whom I have often had an adversarial relationship, also came through, handling many tasks related to Grace’s death that I was ill-equipped to deal with emotionally and in some cases financially. Both of them have subsequently checked in with me by phone almost every day.

Continue reading →