While studying the concept of integrity and the two ways that Calhoun and McFall interpret the concept, it reminded me of the breaking headline that was exhausting the news in 2015, ” Patients Give Horror Stories as Cancer Doctor Gets 45 Years”. This article involves a doctor from the Detroit area, Dr. Farid Fata, who was falsely diagnosing patients with cancer. The article states that Dr. Fata “pleaded guilty in September to giving cancer treatments to misdiagnosed patients, telling some they had a terminal blood cancer called multiple myeloma”. Dr. Fata was ruining these people’s lives to better his own career. The article explains, “Fata forfeited $17.6 million that he collected from Medicare and private insurance companies”. McFall would argue that Dr. Fata was at a complete loss of integrity before he even got caught, while Calhoun would argue that the loss of integrity came from when Dr. Fata knowingly deciding to hurt these patients. Both philosophers hold valid stances when it comes to defining and exemplifying. Mcfall explains that “Integrity requires sticking to “one’s principles,” moral or otherwise, in the face of temptation…”(299). While McFall has a valid point, Dr.Frata lost integrity when he initially decided he was going to harm these patients to solely further his career or financial stance. However Calhoun has a valid point when she says ” Characterizing integrity as purely a social virtue does not imply that there is anything self-indulgent about striving to have integrity” (302). Calhoun seeks to explains that while integrity does start at a personal level, it is condemned or implied on a social level. Calhoun also seeks to explain that we as humans are social beings and in order for the concept of integrity to be formed it involves other social beings. Without the effect on these patients and willingness to openly harm them, there would be no way to judge or decipher the loss of integrity. Calhoun also has a valid point when she states, “Looking at integrity as a social virtue enables us to see persons of integrity as insisting that it is in some important sense for us, for the sake of what ought to be our project or character as people” (302). Calhoun states that without other social beings we have no way to even formulate the concept of what integrity really is.