Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier
State the moral issue(s)in this case.
Is there conflict that could be damaging to people? What does it do to
people as persons who have dignity, rights, and hopes for a better life
together?
What are the facts in the case? What are the relevant facts of the case?
What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome?
What is at stake for each? Are there other important stakeholders in addition to those directly involved?
Identify and evaluate alternative actions from the various moral
perspectives applying the questions suggested in the article “A
Framework For Ethical Decision Making”.
Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.
See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.
Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm?
Which option respects the rights and dignity of all stakeholders? Even
if not everyone gets all they want, will everyone still be treated
fairly? Which option would promote the common good and help all
participate more fully in the goods we share as a society, as a
community, as a company, as a family? Which option would enable the
deepening or development of those virtues or character traits that we
value as individuals? as a profession? as a society? ? Using one of the
theoretical approaches from “A Framework for Ethical Decision Making” or
your textbook explain what you would do in this case.
The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier
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 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. 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.
The
first three articles provide theoretical perspectives for resolving or
about moral reasoning. The fourth article provides an actual case study
entitled, “The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier”.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/supplier.html
Read the following theoretical articles first:
? A Guide to Moral Decision Making
http://www.ethicsweb.ca/guide/
? An Ethical Framework for Business Behavior
http://cae.hkbu.edu.hk/html/charles.lo.html
? Markkula Center:A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html
After reading the theoretical perspectives try applying these ideas,
answering the following set of questions, as they apply to the case
study, The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier.
? State the moral issue(s)in this case.
? What are the facts in the case?
? Identify and evaluate alternative actions from the various moral
perspectives applying the questions suggested in the article “A
Framework For Ethical Decision Making”.
? Using one of the
theoretical approaches from “A Framework for Ethical Decision Making” or
your textbook explain what you would do in this case.
