From the onset, it is crucial to point out that the right decision for Cynthia would be reporting these fraudulent acts to her superiors without making the information public. In order to make her case strong, Cynthia should use the findings from the additional investigations she carried out in order to ensure that the exposure has enough merit. However, it is crucial for her to seek another job before taking any action since the decision taken might leave her jobless. Any decision that one might take in such a situation has various implications. One such implication would be on the families affected by the whistle blowing in case of termination of careers and effectively the source of livelihood. Cynthia Hooper is no exceptional and has to consider her career and family and the careers of other employees, something I would do in her shoes. According to Sissela Bok, “Would-be whistleblowers confront the conflict inherent in all dissent: between conforming and sticking their necks out. The more repressive the authority they challenge, the greater the personal risk they take in speaking out” (as cited in Donaldson & Werhane, 2007). In this regard, there is a big risk of one’s livelihood and that of the family and the career of the whistleblower in case the superiors view such acts as dissent. Donaldson and Werhane (2007) further support this idea by stating that, “When audiences are not free to receive or to act on the information-when censorship or fear of retribution stifles response-then the message rebounds to injure the whistleblower.”