Words: 1313
By mistake, he installed a resistor with the wrong resistance, but he recognized that the pulse it created was identical to a normal beating heart, Greatcoats aid in his book “The Making of the Pacemaker (Unite Press International, 2011 Greatcoats realized that the new circuit could be used to control a human heartbeat and in his barn with SO,000 in savings he created 50 handmade pacemakers, but he had difficulty interesting physicians in his invention (Unite Press International, 2011).
Technical Issues The key aspect to the utilitarian ethical problem to this situation is that 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 (Shanks, Thomas, 1966).
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 (Shanks, Thomas, 1966). 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, “l 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 (Shanks, Thomas, 1 996)? ” Passing the Problem “This is a time bomb waiting to happen. Why are we even talking about this? Engineering was bemoaning the lack of standards for testing the electronics of pacemakers, and the majority of the Board understood that they had a problem with no easy solution (Shanks, Thomas, 1966). One of the people on the Board told me later that the founders of Silicon Valley were the sons (and a few daughters) of blue-collar parents. Their fathers were plumbers, electricians, and carpenters, who had passed on a core set of values to their hillier. This was the Valley before greed and early retirement (at the age of 30) had swept through it.
So they took seriously their responsibility and duty to protect the rights of people who needed pacemakers at the same time as they balanced their fiduciary responsibility to the current company. They understood that “doing the right thing” did not have to be stupid, and that they could both do the right thing and do well for the company (“DO RIGHT” AND “DO WELL,” rather than having to choose one or the other (Shanks, Thomas, 1966). So, they continued to sell to the pacemaker company. But hey also instructed their engineers to develop more rigorous testing and technical standards they could hold the other company to.
They reserved the right to stop selling if the other company did not improve its technical standards. They took steps to be sure they did not have a legal liability down the line and then turned it over to the other company to improve the quality Of its products (Shanks, Thomas, 1966). They start out using utilitarian ethics when they introduced the pacemaker to the world to help people who was having heart problems or a heart condition where the heart would stop and people was dying so the pacemaker was the fix to that problem.
Although the business knows there is problems with the pacemaker instead of them owning up and finding a solution they pass the problem off on someone else due to they know that it was not going to be an easy fix for the problem. So that one reason all of the board members agreed because they did not want to be hit with the lawsuits. Helpful Advice If Jeremy Beneath had some advice to share with these people it would be that he promulgated the principle Of utility as the standard Of right action on the part of governments and individuals.
Actions are approved hen they are such as to promote happiness, or pleasure, and disapproved of when they have a tendency to cause unhappiness, or pain (ML). Combine this criterion of rightness with a view that we should be actively trying to promote overall happiness, and one has a serious incompatibility with psychological egoism. Thus, his apparent endorsement of Hobnails psychological egoism created problems in understanding his moral theory since psychological egoism rules out acting to promote the overall well-being when that it is incompatible with one’s own.
For the psychological egoist, that is not even a possibility. So, given ‘ought to imply can’ it would follow that we are not obligated to act to promote overall well-being when that is incompatible with our own. This generates a serious tension in Bantam’s thought, one that was drawn to his attention. He sometimes seemed to think that he could reconcile the two commitments empirically, that is, by noting that when people act to promote the good they are helping themselves, too.
But this claim only serves to muddy the waters, since the standard understanding of psychological egoism ?? and Bantam’s own statement of his view ?? identifies motives of action which are self-interested. Yet this Seems, again, in conflict with his own specification of the method for making moral decisions which is not to focus on self-interest ?? indeed, the addition of extent as a parameter along which to measure pleasure produced distinguishes this approach from ethical egoism.
Aware of the difficulty, in later years he seemed to pull back from a full-fledged commitment to psychological egoism, admitting that people do sometimes act benevolently with the overall good of humanity in mind (Beneath, 1748-1832). Spoon this advice trying to get the company to comply and do the right thing not only for the people but for the well of the company. The Common Good A. The Common Good – The Best Outcome The people who will benefit from the pacemaker Overall second chance at life Financial, benefit B.
The pacemaker the best option Be with family a little longer Enjoy thing in life that didn’t enjoy before Live, laugh , and love Financial effort to help pay for C. Profitable problem fix Rights to Stop selling Not help reliable for lawsuits Show compassion without sacrificing the business D. Conclusion The company nor the stakeholder will not loss or be held for any liable assists due to they can stop selling at any time and the also had their company on the technical engineers researching for any problem that come up. If they had a legal liability it would be held on the other company not them.
E. They continue to see the pacemakers to the company but they was not reliable and could stop at any time due to if any problem arise. F. Stakeholders could lose if the company would have to stop selling. Overall the pacemaker is the answer to people with a condition called arrhythmias. Conclusion The pace maker business have an overall product that is good for the libeling of the people that have a heart condition. They also have a glitch with the product that. Technology is working and researching to get the mishap fix.