Professional Ethics US Firm Shipped Suspect Blood Canada - Case Study Example

Professional ethics is the set of moral issues arising because of specialist knowledge that people attain in their quest for professionalism and the manner in which they use this knowledge in provision of services to the public. Professional ethics guides one in discharging his/her professional duties to the benefit of the public. Professionals are more informed in regard to their field of expertise as compared to the general public (Whitbeck 40). Professional ethics is interrelated with morals and values in the work place. In exercise of professional ethics in one’s work, the intent of the duties been carried out determines whether the professional practiced ethics or not (changingminds 4). The Canadian Red Cross society was responsible for the blood system in the country since 1940s. The society supplied donated blood to hospitals if it had not expired or to Connaught Laboratories if the blood was beyond its expiry date. In the late 1970s, there was an emergence of public outcry. Thousands of people were suffering from hepatitis C and HIV. After investigation, the rise in HIV and hepatitis C cases was attributed to inadequately screened blood that entered the blood system. The blood came from high risk populations like those in the prisons. In the 1980s, the private, governmental and non-governmental organizations supplied blood products and blood that were inadequately screened into the health system of the country (Picard 32). One such case related to Armour Pharmaceutical Company. The pharmaceutical company distributed lethal blood products in Canada after it received a warning from one of the scientists and employees that the products could be carrying the AIDs virus. According to the scientist, the heating process involved in the manufacture of the products was inadequate to kill the HIV virus and thus the distribution of the products for public use was an ill motive. According to Alfred Prince, the scientist, the heating process did not always eliminate the HIV virus in the factorate blood clotting agent. The company disregarded this and requested the scientist not to publish the contents of his findings owing to the confidential provision in the contract document. The management went ahead to sell the factorate despite the dangers the action could expose to the public. The pharmaceutical company regularly collected blood from the risk prone groups, that is, inmates and homosexuals and thus the likelihood of infecting the public with hepatitis C and HIV virus. This raises the question of professional ethics in discharging one’s professional duties. According to the contract, Mr. Alfred Prince was to maintain confidentiality in his work but on the other hand he was obligated to protect the interests of the public. Questions arise as to what regulations he could abide by and the manner in which he would have conducted himself. Could he risk losing his job or retain his job and expose the public to the deadly virus? Also failing to abide by the contract terms could result to breach of contract and thus the pharmaceutical firm would seek legal redress for compensation. Armour Company supplied a heat treated blood clotting product referred to as factor 8 to Irish hospitals and BTSB. In the year 1985, the Dr Prince conducted a research of the effectiveness of the heat treatment process in killing of the HIV virus. In august the same year, he concluded that the process was not working as the products contained the deadly virus even after heating at 60 degrees centigrade for over thirty hours. In October the same year, he proposed to publish the revelations without mentioning the company but was denied the rights to do so. However, his findings were published in the lancet medical journal in May the following year. A steering committee was formed in August 1985 by the management of Armour pharmaceutical company to investigate the matter. According to the management, publishing of the findings would deny the company customers it had attained and therefore a decline in sales volume. The management appreciated Dr Prince’s work but was unwilling to let the public know of these new found facts. According to Armour management, the issue was not on ethics but on marketing. The company went ahead and sold the products well informed that the products may have contained HIV virus. Several of haemophiliacs cases that received the product in February 2006 tested positive and succumbed to HIV related infections. In October 1986, Armour recalled all the products from Temperley store. Later, Temperley raised concern to Armour of the high incidences of HIV positive cases in most of his patients. Armour also recalled products sold to most of the clients in attempts to salvage the lifes of the clients (archivestcmie par 6). List of Options for Action In any undertaking, the industry players should take the necessary steps to protect their clients. The steps may emanate from the management or from the junior staff members. In the case of blood collection and subsequent submission, the management of blood system firms should ensure that the blood is collected from risk free groups and screened to ensure that it is free of pathogens and virus. Armour Pharmaceutical Company management was interested in safeguarding their clients and thus employed Mr. Alfred Prince to test the factorates. However, the revelation by the scientist put the company at crossroads of either destroying the product or exposing the clients to the lethal virus. However, the management resolved to expose the customers to the lethal virus and thus breaking the professional ethics, morals and values. As a company, the management was supposed to investigate into the matter and establish the correctness of the revelation. As a safety guideline, they were not supposed to sell the products having being well informed of the dangers that the products could expose the public to. As safety precaution, the company would have subjected the products to further treatment to ensure that the density of the virus has been kept at low levels. The products would be screened to ensure that they are free of HIV and Hepatitis C lethal viruses. The products sold would also be recalled for testing and screening. No matter how much profit the company would love to make, the customers and the public’s needs should always be catered for. The professional ethics, values and morals give a guideline on how a professional should behave in efforts to protect the consumers of products. The different ways of whistle blowing result to different perceptions from the public. This implies that there will be difference in effectiveness of the whistle blowing. Whistle blowing should be done in a professional way so as to be effective in warning the public of the potential dangers associated with the product. Armour pharmaceutical has a social responsibility to protect the consumers of its products and thus are obliged to collect blood from risk free groups and screen the blood to ensure that it is free of deadly viruses. After learning of the inadequacy of the heating process to kill the deadly virus, the management of Armour pharmaceutical was supposed to report to the food and hygiene board. This would make the board aware of the dangers the blood products consumers were exposed to and take the necessary steps in curbing this. The board would give alternative solutions and engage scientists in vigorous research of the same. This would discover a better way of disinfecting the blood and better regulations on the groups of people to collect blood from. With this, the consumers of blood products would be at a lower risk of contracting the deadly viruses and thus better health. Statement of other Relevant Facts During the same period, there were other blood scandals like the collection of blood from prison inmates and homosexuals. This group of people is in the high risk category of people and thus collecting blood from them exposes the consumers of the blood products into risk of infection. The blood collected at the time was not only used for donation but also to manufacture bold clotting products. This meant that infection in one of the donors would infect the whole volume of blood collected and consequently the consumers of the products. This shows the importance of taking the necessary steps in ensuring that the blood collected is free of deadly virus. To prevent contamination of the blood collected, the management and the scientists should work together, test each pint, verify the pint is not infected and then manufacture the blood products. Through this practice, Armour would be assured of risk free blood products even without undergoing the heating process. Professionals hold valuable information in regard to their field of practice as compared to the public. It is in this regard that they are supposed to protect the public and engage in activities that do not endanger the public. Even without revealing the information, professionals are supposed to undertake responsibilities that protect the consumers. Armour feared that if the information leaked to the public domain, the company will lose the hard earned market. In protecting the consumers of the blood products and at the same time maintaining the market share, the company would have immediately recalled the products without giving clear reasons for the step. This would ensure that there are no more patients to be infected with the deadly virus as the company looked for amicable solutions. Having learnt of the dangers the blood products exposed to the consumers, Armour would have carried out an extensive research to establish the number of consumers, if any, of the products who had been infected with the deadly virus. This would prove the authenticity of the research findings presented by Dr Prince. If there were no reported cases, the company would continue selling its products but ensure blood collection is done in the right manner by collecting from risk free groups of people and screening the donors before donation. If there were any reported cases, they would take the responsibility of taking care of the patients by providing the medication necessary. By doing this, the public domain would appreciate that the company failed at the beginning but has the interests of the consumers at heart. This would further reduce the number of court cases and increase the public confidence in the activities of the company. Practicing professional ethics will reduce the amount of unnecessary costs that the company would have incurred either through fines or in court cases. Statement of Relevant Moral Principles Moral principles are the principles of wrong and right generally accepted by a social group or by an individual. Moral principles guide companies in taking of corporate responsibilities and limit the level of involvement of the company. In any undertaking, companies should be keen on the moral principles and ensure adherence to them. This improves the public image and reputation of the company and thus improves its performance. Companies with poor moral principles suffer from bad reputation and thus low performance (Westin 335-339). The most valuable asset in a profession is its confidence that it inspires and its collective responsibility. The health care system especially the blood system must have the public confidence (MacFarlane par 7). The moral principles that Armour is supposed to exercise in the manufacture of the blood products are utilitarianism, rights, distributive justice, ethics of care and virtue ethics. According to the utilitarianism principle, the morally correct action is that one that aims at maximizing the net social benefits which equates to the social benefits minus the social costs. The principle focuses on the end results of an action, that is, the harm and the good. In selling of the products to the consumers, the management should have considered the social good and harm that was associated with the products. If the social good outweighs the social harm, then sell the products otherwise refrain from selling any more products unless amicable solutions were attained. According to the principle, if a product gives more social benefits than costs, then the action to offer the product is morally right. According to the rights principle, morally correct action is the one that one has a moral right to carry out, that which does not infringe on the moral rights of the others and furthers other people’s moral rights. The company knew that the action of selling the blood products was not right, but due to conflict of interest continued selling. Though continuing selling the products implied continued exposure of the clients to the deadly virus, the marketing interest overshadowed this fact. The life of a person is paramount in any undertaking and thus the company as well as Dr Prince failed in this moral principle. The basic argument of ethics of care is that ethical behavior is far more important than impersonal principles. The care principle states that the morally correct action is that which cares for the people involved. The company did not observe this principle. In the case of Armour pharmaceutical company, the people involved were the clients or the consumers of the product and the retailers. The pharmaceutical company exposed the retailers to harm in terms of facing legal suits and loosing the market share. The consumers believed the retailers affirmations of the safety of the product. This is contrary to the facts released by Dr Prince. The manufacturer was obliged to relay the information of there being a probability of presence of the deadly virus to the retailers and other health care practitioners (Chumann par 1-10). The virtue ethics principle states that an action that is morally correct is that which displays good moral virtues and not bad moral vices. In carrying out the sale of the blood products, Armour indirectly killed the consumers of the products. The company should have refrained from sale of the products having known the particulars of the blood products (compuark par 1-4). Statement of Decision In regard to the above mentioned facts and explanations, Dr Prince and Armour company failed as far as ethical practices at the workplace are concerned. Denying Dr Prince a chance to publish his findings was an ill founded decision. Considering that the identity of the company was not to be disclosed to the public was a good consideration of Dr Prince in maintaining confidentiality as per the contract terms. Although publishing of the information would lead to suspicion of the company’s activities, they would have gone ahead and allowed the virologist to publish these research findings. There are many avenues of whistle blowing not only through the organization where one is attached. Dr Prince being a virologist understood very well the consequences of selling the products to the public. Despite the contract provision on confidentiality, he would have gone ahead and published the results of his research. This would have helped protect the public and make the public aware of the ineffectiveness of the heating process in eradicating the HIV virus from the collected blood. Through this, the consumers of the blood products would be cautious in their use and therefore reduce the cases of infection. The company’s action to restrict the release of information into the public domain is a clear indication of the degree of selfishness in their practice. The company was more concerned in marketing their products disregarding the consumers’ health. This is in contrary to the guidelines in the professional ethics codes (Callahan p340-378). As an individual and an expert in virology, Dr Prince had the moral responsibility to protect the public from potential harm that could arise from the activities of the company he worked for. When the company disregarded his notice and went further to distribute the blood, he should have raised the alarm to the authorities, taking the role of whistleblower. In his case, he had express knowledge and confidence of the fact that the blood treatment process was ineffective against viruses. By failing to assume the responsibilities of a whistle blower, prince neglected moral principle and responsibilities at the expense of his contract with the organization. It may be said that he conspired with the company against the public by acting out of irresponsibility. Justification of the Decision Having considered the moral ethics and the way professionals and corporate are supposed to act when carrying out their duties and providing services to the public, it is clear that Armour pharmaceutical company did not adhere to any of this. The company was supposed to alert the food and hygienic board about the findings of the research, refrain from selling any more products, make the retailers of the products aware of these findings, recall the products, test the products and make a conclusive judgment of the steps to undertake. The company was also supposed to go further and carry out, with the permission from the users, a HIV test on the consumers of the products. Having done this, the company would arrive at a reasonable conclusion. But the company did not at all take any of the steps. The company recalled the products after harm had been caused to the consumers and were facing legal charges. Professional ethics are put forward to protect the clients and safeguard the reputation of the professional. It is about the way professionals act and perform when discharging their duties. Professional ethics thus can be said to be a set of rules comprising of rules of conduct, moral principles and values. Professional ethics commits one to doing what is right and relates to the behavior and conduct of a professional and firms. As a whole, professional ethics can well be defined as a framework for integrity and professionalism maintenance in the entire profession. In their practice, the pharmaceutical firm did not at all practice professional ethics and was not ready to sacrifice their market for integrity. Though the provisions in the contract document provided that confidentiality of the information collected, the identity of the firm by Dr. Prince was not to be disclosed and therefore no need to worry. This is despite the fact that Armour was the only firm that treated their products in such a way. In reference to Dr. Prince, he was obliged to safeguard the interests of the pharmaceutical firm as well as the interests of the public. Professionalism dictates that despite the repercussions to be faced one is supposed to do what is right and should always adhere to it. By not revealing the information to the public meant that he as a professional did not safeguard the interests of the public as professional ethics demand. It is my belief that the ethical practices, that is, the decision to do what is right always and make appropriate decisions in line with professional ethical standards always outstands the amoral or immoral counterpart in the long run. When individuals are engaged in a sense of confidence in relation to the ethical soundness of the position held, they concentrate more on productivity and creativity. On the contrary, if individuals or firms engage in unethical practices then their productivity is suppressed. If Armour firm engaged in professional ethics and adhered to protecting the consumers of the blood products, the firm would engage the employees in researching for a better working method. In so doing, the customers’ confidence in the firm would improve and therefore an increase in the market share. The management feared that they would lose the market but on the contrary, practice of professional ethics would highly improve the publics perception of the firm and therefore increase the market share. Works Cited Archives.tcm.ie, IHS lawyers seek chink in the Armour of big blood firms, Retrieved on 30th September 2010 from http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2001/04/01/story171676928.asp. Callahan J. C.,Ethical Issues in Professional Life, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Changing Minds.org. Values, morals and ethics, Viewed on 30th September 2010, from http://changingminds.org/explanations/values/values_morals_ethics.htm. Chumann, P. L., Moral Principles, viewed on 1st October 2010, http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~schumann/www/teach/chapter_2.ppt. 2003. Comp.uark.edu, General Moral Principles, viewed on 1st October 2010, http://comp.uark.edu/~rlee/gmp/help.html#eg. MacFarlane, P., The Importance of Ethics and the Application of Ethical Principles to the Legal Profession, Viewed on 1st October 2010, http://www.paclii.org/journals/fJSPL/vol06/8.shtml. Picard A., The gift of death: confronting Canada's tainted-blood tragedy, Toronto: HarperCollins, 1995. Westin, A. F., Professional and ethical dissent : Individual, corporate and social responsibility, Technology in Society, Volume 8, Issue 4, 1986, Pages 335-339. Whitbeck, C., Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research, London, Cambridge University Press, 1998. p. 40. Xxxx Since this case study was from "whistleblowing and personal responsibilities" section of my study guide and textbook. Can you add an explanation(responsibilities) of this in the flow of the case study? Take a look at textbookE. I will upload it now. Read More