The fact that the supervisor in this case would like to doctor or change the results of the laboratory test results is both disappointing and puts one’s employment in a very precarious position. As a single parent who supports two children, the loss of employment would be very “dangerous” for one’s own family. One may be relegated to menial jobs that will pay considerably less than what one is earning at the moment. Despite all the difficulties that one will encounter when one will push for telling the truth and negating the promulgation of the supervisor, it is essential that one becomes a “whistleblower” of sorts when it comes to this issue. If I were in the shoes of the laboratory technician, I would declare my opposition to the decision to market the drug and document this opposition in the appropriate media channel.
The decision to oppose the act of marketing the new drug is based on two major schools of social responsibility: natural law and sociological school. The first, natural law, speaks of certain values and legal judgments that individuals hold above reason, and these often precede human laws. Honesty and the value of life are values and issues that all societies and cultures value above everything else. Therefore, the issue is simple: if one allows the drug to be marketed, there is a potential rise in cancer patients. Not only will the patients be aggrieved, so will their families, who will spend time, money and other resources to take care of the patients. If the patient is working, he is bound to lose his income, and if he supports a family, this then obviously presents a problem for the family. But, if one makes “noise” and tells the appropriate groups that there is a potential for the users of the drug to develop cancer, then one is saving many individuals and their families from the pain, grief and the tedious task of caring for their ill loved ones.
As one’s personal convictions include the protection of life and the institution of the family, as well as upholding the truth, then based on the natural law school of thought, it would be wise to become a whistleblower in this case.
The second school of thought, the sociological school, demands that an individual tasked to be a lawmaker or a judge take into account the set of interests of a group of people. This set of interests then becomes the basis for the creation of laws that will govern these groups of people. Finally, the judge or lawmaker should always be careful to make rulings or judgements that are consistent with the standards effected by the laws created earlier. Thus when this school of thought is correlated to the issue on hand, one simply has to think about the interests of the entire group of people who will be afflicted with hemorrhoids and who will have to take the drug. While they may be suffering from hemorrhoids, it will be against the interests and the safety of these people to subject them to take the medication. Therefore there will be laws that will mandate that the truth about the medication should always be proclaimed in public. If the law states otherwise, then when people start to take the medication and begin to get sick with cancer, then the sociological school dictates that the laws ought to be changed. In this issue, the judge must always have the best interests of these patients on hand, and thus he will always rule against the marketing of the said medication. As a judge, then one definitely will have to go against the prescription and selling of the drug, and to demand that further studies be conducted first.
Reference
Kubasek, N., Brennan, B. and Browne, N. (2012). The Legal Environment of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education.
