In view of traditional utilitarianism, the utility or usefulness of the product must outweigh its risk of danger. So, for example, if a drug cures a mild case of hiccups but causes death in half the people who use it, it may not qualify as unavoidably unsafe. It is worth noting that a product need not save lives to be considered useful. Products ranging from birth control medications to beauty products have been found to be sufficiently useful to warrant the risk associated with their use. (‘Find law’ Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005)
Hence, above demonstrates that utility must outweigh its risk of danger that could be ethical. However, in this medical laser product case, ‘thousands of people received sub optimal results as a result of these defective products. People ended up with visual distortion (halos, glares, ghosting and poor night vision).’ Based on the testimony above-mentioned, the danger is more than utility, and so many people receive negative utility from the defective laser product. Subsequently, the result added many of these accidents are avoidable that caused by defective laser equipment.
Usually, if a product is defective in the way that it is marketed, manufactured, or designed, and someone is injured as a result of that defect, then the manufacturer, distributor and/or seller of the product are liable, or responsible for consequences of the defect. (‘Find law’ Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005)
Thus, in view of traditional utilitarianism, the unsafe product is unethical and morally wrong as the negative utility for people.
If a prescription drug, vehicle component, or other consumer product has caused an injury, may be what happens when a product is carefully designed, manufactured and marketed, but is dangerous nonetheless. Must a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of the product bear responsibility? The answer depends in part on whether the product falls within very specific guidelines to qualify as an “unavoidably unsafe product.” If a product is found to be unavoidably unsafe then it is not a defective product, even though it might cause injury. (‘Find law’ Available at [] accessed on 16/12/2005)
Medical products make up the majority of products found to be unavoidably unsafe, however the unavoidably unsafe exception is not limited to medical products. Products that have generally qualified as unavoidably unsafe include cleaning compounds such as commercial dry-cleaning solvent, industrial strength bathroom cleaning products, and acetone, as well as cosmetics such as permanent wave solutions, hair bleach and hair dye. Products such as benzene and firearms have also qualified. (‘Free Advice Law’ available at [] accessed on 16/12/2005)
According to the medical product (refer to appendix 1) case, the patients sincerely believed they were innocent. The major argument in favour of this case is that product is unavoidably unsafe. The unavoidably unsafe exception is that the product be appropriately marketed. If the directions accompanying the product are faulty, or if the product is sold with inadequate warnings, it may not be unavoidably unsafe. (‘Find law’ Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005)
Hence refer to the case, ‘a defective laser product sold by Alcon’ that indicates this defective laser product is marketed with no indication as to how it should be used, or by whom it should be taken, it may not come within the unavoidably unsafe exception. Similarly, the defective laser product is marketed with no warnings as to potential adverse reactions or contraindications, therefore it may not be considered unavoidably unsafe.
Thus, based on perception of unavoidably unsafe product, unsafe product is viewed as morally wrong and unethical as it may not be unavoidably unsafe,
An alternative version of utilitarianism is called rule-utilitarianism (Velasquez, 1998). Velasquez states that according to rule-utilitarianism, when trying to determine whether a particular action is ethical, one is never supposed to ask whether that particular action will produce the greatest amount of utility.
According to Railroad Crossing Accidents (refer to appendix 2),
“For the last decade, there have been approximately 3,000 railroad accidents annually, with nearly 35% of railway crossing accidents occurring to children under 16. Many of these accidents are avoidable and caused by defective or outdated train equipment, or untrained or overworked employees.”
Based on the testimony above-mentioned, so many people even children receive negative utility from the railway. Subsequently, the result added many of these accidents are avoidable that caused by defective or outdated train equipment. In fact, there is an alternative way. Repair or update the train equipment both can avoid these accidents.
Thus, based on rule-utilitarianism, unsafe product is viewed unethical and morally wrong as there are alternative methods to convert victim’s situation.
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). (‘’ Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005)
Virtue ethics descends from the classical Hellenistic traditions represented by Plato and Aristotle, in which the cultivation of virtues traits of character is viewed as morality’s primary function (Velasquez, 1998).
Refer to appendix 3, all products purchase and use, along with the products in work, play or live must be safe. Frequently, individuals are severely injured and disabled because a product manufacturer does not warn people regarding the proper use of the product or the hazards associated with accepted use of the product. The tragedies may also occur when manufacturers of industrial equipment fail to properly guard individuals from any danger associated with the normal use of their equipment, or where corporate purchasers of industrial equipment remove safety guards and equipment that accompanies the product, and expose workers and others to injury or death. (‘Unsafe products’ Available at [] accessed on 27/11/2005)
According to the European Community Product Liability Directive started --
“The producer is liable for any personal injuries, death or damage to personal property64 caused by a defect in the product.” (‘Civil liabilities of unsafe product’ Available at [] accessed on 06/12/2005)
Under the law, every product should meet the ordinary expectations of a customer. If a product has a defect or a danger that cannot be expected by the customer, then such a product is not said to meet the ordinary expectations of the customer; and the seller can be liable for such products if they lead to any injuries. Product liability does not fall under any federal law, but is governed by state laws. (‘What is product liability?’
Available at [] accessed on 06/12/2005)
A product is considered defective when it does not provide the safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including the presentation of the product, the use to which it could reasonably be expected that the product would be put, and the time when the product was put into circulation.
According to appendix 3, dangerous toys, teddy bears do not provide the safety and restrain children in an accident because of its defective design. Based on virtue ethics, the European Community Product Liability Directive is morally right and ethical. Thus the unsafe product is morally wrong and unethical to people.
Safety and acceptable risks, distinguish three different steps involved in the assessment of safety from an ethical point of view: the first is determining how much safety is attainable and how to attain is in a given endeavour; the second is deciding how much safety is demanded with respect to a particular product or activity; the third step, once that determination is made, is ascertaining whether a particular instance of a product or activity comes up to the specified standards (De George, p279).
Refer to the appendix, “a garden cart bought from Costco which stated the weight limit was 900-1000 lbs. Twice the front wheels broke completely off the axles with about 200 lbs total on it. A little girl got hurt.” Companies have the obligation to make products at least as safe as the state of the art (an admittedly vague term) for that product permits and demands (De George, p279).
If an individual suffers an injury or economic loss due to unsafe products or unreasonably dangerous products, they are entitled to receive compensation. The quicker action is taken by an individual for injuries or damages involving unsafe products liability laws, the better the opportunity there is to collect monetary damages. Timing is very important in these matters. Often after a victim is injured by a product, employers, manufacturers, distributors and insurance companies will attempt to minimize their liability by modifying the product, or even discarding or destroying the product. (‘Unsafe products’ Available at [] accessed on 27/11/2005)
Based on safety and acceptable risks analysis, unsafe product is not morally right and unethical.
According to the above analysis by using the ethical perspectives, the unsafe product ethical issues discussed are considered unethical type of action as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The findings of the analysis
Eventually, based on the analysis above, four theories conclude that unsafe product is both unethical and morally wrong. As a conclusion, the unsafe product is considered both morally wrong and unethical.
References:
-
De George, R. T. (1999) Business Ethics (6th ed.), Prentice Hall, USA.
-
Shaw, W. H. (1999) Business Ethics (3rd ed.), Wadsworth publishing company, USA.
-
Desjardins, J. R., & McCall, J. J. (1996) Contemporary issues in business ethics (3rd ed.), Wadsworth publishing company, USA.
-
Velasquez, M. G. (1998) Business Ethics: Concept and Cases (4th ed.), Prentice Hall, USA.
- Hall, W. D. (1993) Making the right decision: Ethics for managers, John Wiley & Sons Inc, USA.
-
Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, New York.
-
Available at [] accessed on 23/11/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 23/11/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 27/11/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 06/12/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 16/12/2005
Bibliography
-
Available at [] accessed on 06/12/2005)
-
Available at [] accessed on 06/12/2005)
-
Available at [] accessed on 16/12/2005)
-
Available at [] accessed on 06/12/2005
-
Available at [] accessed on 06/12/2005
Appendix
Appendix 1
Medical Products
There are a number of dangerous medical products, which have prompted personal injury lawsuits. Some products under scrutiny are lasers used in Lasik eye surgery. A local television station recently investigated and aired a story involving a defective laser product sold by Alcon. These lasers failed to perform as represented and thousands of people received sub optimal results as a result of these defective products. People ended up with visual distortion (halos, glares, ghosting and poor night vision), which made it difficult to function. Because these patients often had good visual acuity (i.e. that could read the eye chart) many doctors told them there was nothing wrong.
Available at [] accessed on 23/11/2005
Appendix 2
Railroad Crossing Accidents
The Federal Railroad Administration estimates that every 90 minutes there is a train collision or derailment in the United States. For the last decade, there have been approximately 3,000 railroad accidents annually, with nearly 35% of railway crossing accidents occurring to children under 16. Many of these accidents are avoidable and caused by defective or outdated train equipment, or untrained or overworked employees. Railroads are self-regulated and a close eye is kept on the bottom line for profit. Very little is done to update technology unless there are several accidents or lawsuits related to a specific crossing. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, more than 80% of public crossings do not have safety lights and gates and 60% of all train accidents happen at these crossings.
Available at [] accessed on 03/12/2005
Appendix 3
Dangerous toys
These range from teddy bears with button noses that can come off and be swallowed, to cribs with rails spaced too widely, to child seats that do not sufficiently restrain children in an accident, to games that should never have been released at all.
Available at [] accessed on 23/11/2005
Appendix 4
James of Eureka CA (6/28/03):
We bought a garden cart from Costco which stated the weight limit was 900-1000 lbs. Twice the front wheels broke completely off the axles with about 200 lbs total on it. Two kids were riding on it! Both times! A little girl got hurt -- bruised on her side, and frightened both the kids terribly because the whole cart tipped over forward.
We had to pay to get the wheels re-welded. A very poor design in these carts! Now we will have to have the back two wheels welded just to be safe! The little girl was quite bothered by this and we felt it should have been safe enough for 200 lbs when it stated 900-1000 lbs.
Available at [] accessed on 23/11/2005