Responsibilities In Business Ethics

One day a twenty year old man was walking when he all of a sudden drops dead on the spot. The cause of death was later determined as a heart attack which is peculiar for a twenty year old man. Further investigation revealed that the man had a pace maker implanted in him. Even more strange then the circumstance of his death was the fact that six other individuals also died with pacemakers inserted within them. The question now is what led to their unfortunate deaths? Who can be held responsible and accountable for their actions or lack of actions? For this sort of phenomena to occur, there must be something that was left unsaid.

The causal responsibility can be divided among several parties, first being the manufacturer of the pacemaker and the ones who work under them to sell them. After the Heymach v. Cardiac Pacemakers case was decided in 1999, pacemaker companies were forced to modify their products as stated in the ruling. The manufacture of the pacemaker explains how no other product goes through as much testing as pacemakers do and that since the modifications there has been no problems regarding their product. They are even quoted on saying that the incidents were, “unrelated” and “perhaps they were installed inc

. . .

View the whole essay, without interruption

While the hospital should have examined the product efficiently before installation, he should have never sold it in the first place, without any means of justification of his actions.

Despite the fact that the hospital who installed the pacemaker didn’t examine the pacemaker before hand, they’re truly had no knowledge of its past.

Responsibility for the death can be explained through several theories, primarily the theory of due care which states that the seller is responsible for the investigation of possible harms and either informing the buyer of these hazards or eliminate them.

The amount of responsibility given in a case can be decreased by mitigating factors. Finally the negligence of the hospital performing the surgery to thoroughly examine the pacemaker even though they knew it was used. They went to the hospital trusting them in helping their condition when in actuality they were completely unaware of what awaited. All of this done to further their profits and to attempt to stand above the other manufacturers. Money is said to be, “the root of all evils” and in especially holds true in these cases. Even though should’ve realized the condition of the pacemaker, the fact is that they did not which give them lack of knowledge. Also the negligence of the hospital for installing a pacemaker whom they knew was used without ever examining the condition of it.

With as much knowledge and control the supply office had, the manufacturers had just as much if not more moral responsibility in the case. That which was supposed to help them, ended up destroying them in the end.

Throughout the duration of this case, the over lying factor of all that occurred was simply caused by greed. The cheap leads they had purchased contained many that were corroded and while that claimed to have sort through them, the fact remains that they were just cheaply made and should never have been used.

Approximate Word count = 1696
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)

Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.