Sole Remaining Supplier
Sole Remaining Supplier
Key Utilitarian Ethical Problems
The key utilitarian ethical problems that confront the supplier transistor company in the case is one where the supplier had to choose between ensuring its own good or the greater good. On one hand, the supplier had to protect the company by ensuring that it does not become liable in any way for any problems that may arise from the development or use of defective pacemakers (Shanks, 1996), especially considering that many people were dying from their use at the time. On the other hand, though, if they stopped supplying transistors to the pacemaker company then this pacemaker company will have to discontinue its operations, which in turn can mean that many people will be deprived of the medical help that they need. As such, not selling transistors to the pacemaker company can also result in the deaths of many people and it can hinder the development of a new medical technology.
Advice that Jeremy Bentham Would Give
If Jeremy Bentham were alive, he would advise that the supplier choose the action or decision that would promote pleasure and reduce pain the most (Driver, 2009). In particular, he would advise the use of the following measures in evaluating the situation: intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity, purity, and the number of people affected by the action.
In this case, the intensity is bound to be greater for the pacemaker company and the public than for the supplier should the supplier stop selling transistors to the pacemaker company. More specifically, the pain that will potentially be caused towards the supplier can come in the form of litigations or damaged reputation, which are not entirely irreversible. On the other hand, the pain that may be caused towards the transistor company is that the company will have to stop operating. Similarly, the pain that will be caused towards the public is that they will forever (possibly) be deprived of a medical technology that can potentially save their lives. In the same regard, the duration of the pain that the supplier will feel from the litigations and bad publicity will be temporary whereas the pain that the pacemaker company will feel from shutting down its operations will be permanent. Unless another pacemaker manufacturer starts to operate, it is possible that the pain that the public will feel from being deprived of this medical treatment may also be permanent. Moreover, the deaths that will result from the unavailability of the pacemaker in the markets will also be permanent.
With regards to certainty, the certainty for pain on the part of the pacemaker company and the public is greater than the certainty of pain for the supplier. In particular, the risk of lawsuits and bad publicity on the part of the supplier is just a risk, meaning that it may or may not happen. However, the pacemaker company will surely shut down once the supplier stops selling transistors to them. It is also certain that the public can no longer purchase or make use of pacemakers once the pacemaker company shuts down. In turn, is certain that this will result in the deaths of many people. As for proximity, any problems that may arise for the supplier may not occur for months or even years. There is even the possibility of these problems not ever occurring. However, for the pacemaker company, the effects of not being supplied with transistors will be felt sooner as the company will have to close down. Likewise, the public will quite immediately feel the effects of the pacemaker no longer being sold in the market.
With regards to fecundity, it is more likely that the supplier’s decision to stop selling transistors to the pacemaker company will lead to further pains for the pacemaker company and the public but will not necessarily lead to more pleasures for the supplier. In the same regard, the supplier’s refusal to supply transistors to the pacemaker company can lead only to pain for the pacemaker company and the public, with no possibility of pleasure. Even for the supplier, there is bound to be more pain from the guilt that they will feel from not supplying transistors to the pacemaker company than from any pleasure they will get from avoiding litigation problems, especially since these litigation problems may not even occur in the first place.
If the scenario were reversed and the supplier decides to continue supplying transistors to the pacemaker company, the intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity, and purity of the pleasure will be greater for the pacemaker company and the public than for the supplier.
It is then clear that more people will benefit if the supplier continues to sell transistors to the pacemaker company. In this case, only the supplier may be at a disadvantage. However, if the supplier stops selling transistors to the pacemaker company then more people will be disadvantaged, with only the supplier gaining an advantage. In this regard, Jeremy Bentham will likely advise the supplier to continue selling transistors to the pacemaker company.
Utility Test
The following illustrates the application the Utility test (“Utility Test - Best Outcomes,” 2012) to the case.
Introduce the Test
Are we promoting the greater good by not supplying transistors to the pacemaker company?
- Validity
Everyone counts the same. As such, the right course of action will result in the most happiness and the least unhappiness for those affected.
- Apply the Test
Identify alternative actions and those affected. The alternative actions are whether the
supplier continues or discontinues selling transistors to the pacemaker company. Those affected include the supplier, the pacemaker company, healthcare organizations, healthcare professionals, and the public, particularly the people with heart conditions.
Determine benefits and costs for each alternative. If the supplier continues to sell transistors to the pacemaker company then the latter will be able to continue manufacturing pacemakers and further developing this technology. This may also help people with heart conditions to live longer and healthier lives. However, this may involve the supplier in lawsuits that may be filed due to defective pacemakers. On the other hand, if the supplier stops selling transistors to the pacemaker company then it protects itself from possible litigations that will stem from defective pacemakers. However, this will mean that the pacemaker company will close down. This will prevent further development of the product and will deprive many people of the benefits of using the product. It can also lead to the deaths of people with heart condition.
What if this action became a policy for similar actions? Allowing for the research and development of medical devices will lead to better public health outcomes.
- Conclusion
The supplier should continue to sell transistors to the pacemaker company as this will
enable the latter to continue manufacturing and developing this device, which will be beneficial for people with heart conditions. On the other hand, discontinuing the supply of transistors to the pacemaker company will discontinue the manufacture and development of pacemakers, which in turn can be detrimental to the health of many people with heart conditions.
Common Good Test
Among the other ethics tests (“Introduction: Using Ethics Tests,” 2012), another test that will be used for the case is the common good test (“Common Good Test,” 2012), which is as follows:
- Introduce the test
Does discontinuing the supply of transistors to the pacemaker company result in the promotion of the common good?
- Validity
Since everyone has access to the common good and benefit from it, everyone has the
obligation to establish and maintain it.
- Apply the test
What parts of the common good are involved? One part of the common good that is at risk
here is public health, particularly the public’s access to the pacemaker, especially those who have heart conditions. Without this device, their health will be compromised and this can even lead to death.
Explain why we have the obligation to promote or protect the common good. The manufacture and development of the pacemaker enables many people with heart conditions to live healthy and long lives. Since the supplier is responsible for providing the transistors that are needed for the manufacture of pacemakers, it is the supplier’s obligation to ensure that it enables the pacemaker company to continue manufacturing and improving the device.
Does the proposed action conflict with this obligation? The supplier’s refusal to sell
transistors to the pacemaker company will prevent the latter from manufacturing and further developing the device. As such, not supplying transistors to the pacemaker company will be in conflict with the supplier’s obligation to promote and protect public health.
- Conclusion
Because not supplying transistors to the pacemaker company will conflict with the supplier’s obligation to promote public health, it is not the ethical course of action to take.
Comparison between the Utility Test and the Common Good Test
Both the utility test and the common good test result in the conclusion that not selling transistors to the pacemaker company is unethical. While the utility test evaluated the situation from the perspective of the number of people who will benefit from the results of the action, the common good test evaluated the situation based on whether the course of action would conflict with one’s obligation to promote the common god.
Of these two tests, the utility test is more informative because it evaluated the two courses of action that could possibly be taken while the common good test evaluated only one course of action, which implies that the opposite of the test’s outcome would apply to the alternative course of action. Moreover, the utility test evaluates the applicability of the action to policy, which means that it evaluates the ethicality of the action when applied to similar situations. In contrast, the common good test evaluates a course of action only for the given situation.
References
Driver, J. (2009, March 27). The history of utilitarianism. Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/.
Common good test. (2012, June 7). Retrieved from http://www.ethicsops.com/CommonGood.php.
Introduction: Using ethics tests. (2012, June 7). Retrieved from
http://www.ethicsops.com/ethicstestsintro.php.
Shanks, T. (1996). The case of the sole remaining supplier. Retrieved from
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/supplier.html.
Utility test - Best outcomes. (2012, June 7). Retrieved from
http://www.ethicsops.com/UtilityTest.php.
