Industrial Testing and Business Ethics: The Crash Test Dummy - Assignment Example

Industrial Testing and Business Ethics: The “Crash Test Dummy” Abstract Industries are populated by various corporations that compete for the largest market share. There are those that are considered industry leaders, and in order for a company to be competitive, it must be innovative in terms of its approach to marketing and also to its products. It is on this note that the necessity for competitive products becomes highlighted: How can a company’s product become competitive if it is not actually tested? Such is the case for the use of so-called “test dummies”, human guinea pigs for testing products. In this paper, the author outlines some of the ethical concerns with the use of humans as test dummies, by using a fictitious company as the springboard for discussion. The Company The Test Lab Corporation was established in 2006 with the aim of addressing the corporate need for reliable product testing. This is achieved by carrying out actual laboratory tests on humans, a practice that was previously carried out by calling for trial volunteers. The Test Lab Corporation boasts of a wide range of services, from testing out new skin care products to new weapons technology. The company’s mission is to provide reliable means of testing new products, with a daring vision of paving the way for a society that is completely safe from unnecessary manufacturing dangers. Criticisms abound, primarily from sectors who feel that human testing is abhorrent and running parallel to the consequent testing done during the German Holocaust. However, what makes the operation of the Test Lab Corporation or TLC stand out is its stringent process of admitting employees and conducting its operations. There is emphasis on volitional participation on the part of an applicant, with full knowledge and disclosure of potential and real hazards involved in the line of work. By its very nature, the job entails high risk and therefore, only the highly physically and psychologically qualified applicants are accepted. Testing is carried out in a carefully controlled environment, with particularly strict medical measures being taken, depending on the level of risk involved in the testing of a product. All personnel are highly trained, and those who are employed as test dummies, referred to in the industry as Professional Testers or ProTesters, undergo a rigorous physical regimen to remain in top physical condition, and are monitored through regular health check ups. All employees are fully covered with an insurance policy that is specially suited to their needs, with the company ready to shoulder any additional cost should the employee meet with any untoward incident as a result of a product test. All TLC employees are well-compensated, fully aware of the high-risk nature of the job of the ProTesters. The Ethical Issues The ethical issues concerning the use of humans as live test dummies stem from the view that human life has inherent value, and to utilize them to test product efficiency is to ignore this basic moral law. To use another human being as a means to an end is to devalue human life, rendering the act morally unacceptable (Velasquez, 1988:90). This is the basis for abhorrence towards the Nazi experiments during the Holocaust. What makes the case of TLC’s ProTesters problematic is the fact that the ProTesters engage in the tests with full volition. They are not coerced in any manner into participating in the tests, nor are they deceived into taking part. There is likewise informed consent, since they choose to be employed by TLC with full knowledge and awareness of the risks involved by the very nature of the job. Furthermore, with the care taken by the company to protect its employees from untoward harm, it is difficult to condemn its operations simply on the basis of the risks involved in the job. There are other jobs that may be just as risky or hazardous, such as window cleaning for high-rise buildings, or work involving toxic chemicals in various chemicals plants. Perhaps the strongest argument for the existence of the TLC is reflected in its vision of creating a society that is free from unnecessary manufacturing danger, precisely because such dangers from faulty or potentially harmful products can be avoided through actual experimental use by real humans, assuming of course that the product was designed for use by humans. This long term vision reflects a utilitarian perspective, arguing that an act is morally justifiable if it leads to the greater good for the greater number. If applied as a rule, as in the case of rule utilitarianism, then society in general would undoubtedly benefit and prove more productive. The CEO and the Question of Moral Responsibility It appears that the more important ethical questions pertain ultimately to the relationship between the company and the employee, and not just between the company and society: 1. What are the rights of an employee that must be protected and upheld by the company, given that the company deals precisely with inflicting various degrees of pain in the course of providing a specific type of service? 2. Up to what moral extent can any company put its employees at risk of personal danger? 3. Likewise, what are the moral responsibilities of a company towards its injured employees? In dealing with problems of such a fundamental nature, companies such as the Test Lab Corporation need to continually examine its policies for application and admission, taking care to admit only those who are truly qualified. More importantly, such companies that deal with high levels of physical risks need to enforce the strict guidelines of operations to ensure that the safety procedures are followed, thereby avoiding accidents. This latter step is meant precisely to address the issue implied by the second question. It can be argued that no company ever has the right to put its employees at risk. But it should be noted that the type of risk involved should be qualified as either unnecessary or necessary. In this case, no company has the right to expose any of its employees to unnecessary risk. In response to the third question, companies like the TLC always need to ensure that there is insurance coverage for its employees, and that providing healthcare carries important moral weight. In all of these, it is the CEO who needs to make sure that all company policies pertaining to the ethical consideration of the employees are followed and executed, if the ethical questions are to be addressed. Moral responsibility thus defines the position of a Chief Executive Officer. Reference Velasquez, M. G. (1988). Business ethics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Read More