Safety Syringes and Needles Throughout the Market - Case Study Example

Business Ethics: The Case of Becton-Dickinson and Needle Sticks Introduction Since 1990s, health care workers who have been assigned to remove intravenous system, draw blood, or injecting patients suffer from AIDS virus, Hepatitis B & C including other viral, bacterial, fungal and parasitic infection. As a result, a lot of them have died each year. With the effort to control and prevent such cases, several agencies have set proper guidelines related to proper handling of needles which have been exclusively designed for nurses and other health care workers. Aside from issuing guidelines, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) eventually required Becton Dickinson and other manufacturers of syringes and needles like Retractable Technologies to market safety syringes and needles throughout the market. Main Issues and Problems The main issues and problems stated in the case includes: (1) Becton Dickinson first marketed only the 3-cc Safety-Lok Syringe in the market (Velasquez, 2003: p. 293); (2) Becton Dickinson marketed its Safety-Lok Syringe at a premium price (Velasquez, 2003: p. 294); and (3) Becton Dickinson monopolized the market by signing an exclusive 7-1/2 year contract with Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) particularly the Premier and Novation which caters the needs of 1,700 and 650 member hospitals respectively. (Velasquez, 2003: p. 295) When Becton Dickinson monopolized the market for syringes and needles, the company was actually increasing the risk of its consumers to experience the adverse health consequences of the health care profession. Discussion Among the moral principles to consider when assessing business ethics of a company includes the principles of utilitarianism, rights, justice, and ethics of care. (Velasquez, 2003) Based on utilitarian principle, it is morally acceptable for a company to maximize the net social benefits (social benefits minus the social costs) of the business. It means that good effects should always exceed the harm of selling unsafe syringes and needles. Basically, it was unethical on the part of Becton Dickinson to focus only on its economic income more than the non-economic effects such as the health and safety of its users when the company decided not to make Safety-Lok Syringe available in 5-cc and 10-cc. Considering that Becton Dickinson was one of the major manufacturers of syringes and needles, the company should have been the first one to act on the health concerns of its consumers. Based on the principle of justice, it is morally acceptable for a company to produce a fair distribution between the economic and non-economic benefits and costs. The case deals with health and safety of the end-users. For this reason, it is possible to conclude that there was no moral justice when the company sold Safety-Lok Syringe at a premium price since a much higher market price would only make it impossible for a large number of health care workers to protect themselves from the health hazards of their profession. Given that only a few hospitals and health care professionals could afford the new product, the number of health care professionals who had been infected by diseases remains high. From this point-of-view, the company did not really considered the ethics of care. When Becton Dickinson monopolized the market by signing an exclusive 7-1/2 year contract with GPOs, the company clearly violated the rights of Retractable Technologies to sell a safer alternative syringes and needles at a much lower price offered by Becton Dickinson. Based on the principle of rights, it is morally unacceptable to infringe the rights of Retractable Technologies to sell its products in the market as well as the rights of the consumers to choose their preferred manufacturer and brand. Considering the monopolistic power of Becton Dickinson, the company did not only violate the moral principles of utilitarianism but also rights, justice, and ethics of care. Proposed Solutions and Recommendations The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other related agencies should not only require the manufacturers of syringes and needles to market safety syringes and needles throughout the market. These agencies should also promote a free-competition in the market in order to increase the quality and safety features of similar products. By doing so, health care professionals and major hospitals will have the option to choose the best product that offers greater protection on the part of health care workers. In the end, there is a higher possibility that a free-competition will force the manufacturers of syringe and needles to exert more effort in developing a highly competitive product. Aside from promoting a free competition in the market, these agencies should also avoid allowing GPOs to handle the purchasing of medical supplies on behalf of its member hospitals. Establishing a large distributor like GPOs would only increase the risk for lobbying, red tape and other unethical business practices. As a result, purchasers of GPOs may end up purchasing lower quality medical supplies at a much higher costs. Health care professionals should be given the opportunity to communicate openly with companies that manufacture syringes and needles. Through an open forum, health care professionals can share their personal concerns with regards to the importance of developing more effective safety features of the said products. Summary and Conclusion Health care professionals are at risk with infections via needle puncture. For this reason, there is a need to promote the development of safety features on syringes and needles. For many years, Becton Dickinson has been doing unethical business practices by violating the ethical and moral principles of utilitarianism, rights, justice and ethics of care. Basically, the main problems in the case includes: Becton Dickinson’s decision to market Safety-Lok Syringe only with 3-cc at a premium price including the company’s strategic decision in monopolizing the market. To avoid experiencing the same ethical concerns in the manufacturing of syringes and needles, FDA, OSHA and other related agencies should not only require manufacturers to develop safety features in syringes and needles but also promote a free-competition in the market, prohibit GPOs in handling the purchasing of medical supplies on behalf of the local hospitals, and allow health care professionals to have an open communication with the manufacturers. *** End *** References: Velasquez, Manuel G. Business Ethics, A Teaching and Learning Classroom Edition: Concepts and Cases. Prentice Hall, 2003. Read More