Read the following case of the Sole Remaining Supplier and answer the questions:
ID: 424201 • Letter: R
Question
Read the following case of the Sole Remaining Supplier and answer the questions:
The heart pacemaker is a modern wonder. The device has a timer that resets itself every time the patient's heart beats. If the heart does not beat on schedule (say, within 1.2 seconds), the pacemaker gives a stimulus that causes a heartbeat.
But the technology was not always so sophisticated, and its early limitations form the background of this true story, told to Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., by one of the participants. Although the events happened 20 years ago, the ethical issues they raise are still relevant.
It's 1975, and you are on the board of directors of a company that makes transistors. Among the many companies with whom you have a contract is one that makes heart pacemakers.
Pacemaker technology is in its infancy. When doctors implant a pacemaker, the patient's normal heartbeat is disabled, and he or she relies entirely on the device. If it fails, the patient's heart stops. Doctors are not very adept at installing the pacemakers, which are extremely delicate; there is even a story of a person yawning deeply, pulling the pacemaker wire in his chest, and dying.
After that and many similar incidents, the board begins to reconsider whether your company should sell to the pacemaker company. Members of the board feel this situation is a major lawsuit just waiting to happen and your company, as well as the company you supply, will be liable. In addition, you feel the specs the pacemaker company uses to test the transistors are not very strong.
You and the board decide to get out of the business before it's too late. You tell the pacemaker company representatives about your conclusion, and they respond, "You can't stop selling us the transistors. You are the sole remaining supplier for us. Everyone else has backed out for the same reasons you're giving. If you don't sell us the product, we'll go out of business. Pretty soon, no one will be making heart pacemakers, and many people need them. Without the pacemaker, people don't even have a chance."
You take that information back to the board. People around the table have different opinions. One person says, "This is a bad deal, and it isn't our problem. We don't make enough on this sale to make the risk worthwhile." Another person says, "We don't know how other companies use the transistors we sell them; why should we be concerned about this one? What about that baby who died when the transistor in the incubator failed? We didn't know how that company was using the transistor." Another person says, "I think we're missing the real issue here. Don't we have an ethical obligation to sell the product to the pacemaker company? What will happen if we don't sell to them?" Another person says, "Give me a break. Our only obligation is to our shareholders. And how did we get so stupid that we're the last source? I'm telling you, we don't need this." Finally, the chair of the board says, "OK. Let's make a decision."
What do you do?
This case was written by Thomas Shanks, S.J., Executive Director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
Please respond to the following questions:
1. What are the facts in this case?
2. State the moral issues in the case?
3. What do you do?
Explanation / Answer
1. What are the facts in this case?
Heat pacemakers are essential for the existence of certain heart patients. The transistors are an important part for manufacturing heart pacemaker and hence the transistor suppliers are also doing a great job to the society by supplying high quality transistors required for the heart pacemaker. If the machine fails, the supplier as well as the manufacturer would have the liability under product liability which would also be a strict liability. Hence the business of heart pacemakers is very risky, but very important for the healthcare industry as well as the public.
2. State the moral issues in the case?
The moral issues includes that if the heart pacemaker undergoes a manufacturing defect due to improper use of the transistor by the manufacturer, the supplier also would be liable for the injuries and the supplier business would be affected. But for the same reason if the supplier stops supplying transistors to the pacemaker company it would affect their business as they are the sole transistor supplier for the pacemaker manufacturer. It would affect the lives of many heart patients and if they continue the supply only negligible chances are there for pacemaker failure. Hence it would be unethical on their part to stop the supply only for business concerns forgetting their responsibility towards the society.
3. What do you do?
I would suggest the board to continue the business with tight control measures to avoid the chances of product failure. We would advice the pacemaker company to re-examine the specifications and develop strong compatible specifications. We would take more precautions to ensure the quality of the transistors being sold to the pacemaker company. I would also suggest the board to make an agreement with the pacemaker company to use the transistor only as per the guidance from our transistor experts to avoid chances of using it improperly.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.