Significant Choice and Crisis Decision Making: MeritCare’s Public Communication in the Fen–Phen Case

This study examines the communication strategies employed by MeritCare’s public relations staff during the fen–phen case. The ethic of significant choice was the primary lens for the study. The study revealed that MeritCare’s public relations staff members believed they did, in fact, follow the ethic of significant choice. Specifically, they perceived that the biases held by staff helped maintain the public’s safety as the primary issue during the fen–phen events. They also believed that their communication strategies allowed them to avoid ambiguity and emotionalized language. Finally, the staff members felt that teaming with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota enabled them to influence the marketplace of ideas by capitalizing on the credible standing of Mayo Clinic.Renae A. Streifel (M.A., North Dakota State University) is a public relations specialist for the MeritCare Hospital group in Fargo, North Dakota. She studied the MeritCare case for her Master’s thesis.Bethany L. Beebe (M.A., Purdue University) studies crisis communication from an organizational perspective. Shari R. Veil (Ph.D., North Dakota State University) is an assistant professor in the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oklahoma. She studies crisis communication from a public relations perspective.Timothy L. Sellnow (Ph.D., Wayne State University) is professor of communication, North Dakota State University. Along with an extensive publication record, he has worked with several US government grants which provide some of the context for his study of crisis communication from an organizational perspective.