Fall Blog Post #1

Ethical Decision-Making Methodology

 

Step 1: Facts

  • I am the designer
  • I am trying to make a syringe to help save people in a developing country
  • Adding the auto-disable makes the syringe more expensive and less accessible to hospitals and clinics, therefore reaching and helping less people
  • Without the safety of the auto-disable the syringe could potentially spread other diseases
  • I need to choose how to design the syringe

Step 2: Stakeholders

  • Patients
  • Doctors and nurses
  • Hospitals
  • Developer/designer 

Step 3: Motivations

  • Patients -> quality care that is affordable, safety and assurance.
  • Doctors & Nurses -> to keep their patients safe, to help cure as many people as possible, to stay safe themselves.
  • Hospitals -> to be one of the best hospitals in the area and have patients feel safe and comfortable coming there, keep the cost of supplies low, to cure most patients that come into the hospital, to make money.
  • Developer/designer -> create an effective and safe product, to have my product sell as much as possible, keep my job/get possible promotion.

Step 4: Solutions

  1. Create all syringes without the auto-disable feature which will allow the syringe to reach the most hospitals and people with the possible repercussion of spreading other diseases
    1. Consequence-based thinking. This solution will be able to reach the most people and cure the max number of patients, helping the country as a whole.
    2. Pros: More hospitals will be able to purchase it, will be able to reach the max number of patients in need of the cure (and save the most people), they syringe will be cheaper for us to produce, easier design, faster to make.
    3. Cons: unsafe (possibly dangerous to nurses/doctors and patients), creates possibly another problem of spreading other diseases, syringe isn’t as effective as it could be, people could suffer/die because of it not having the auto-disable.
  2. Create all syringes with the auto-disable feature which will make it more expensive. Less hospitals will be able to buy it, it will reach less patients, but we know it is safe and will not cause other diseases or issues (because of the design of the product).
    1. Duty-based thinking/ Virtue-based thinking. This solution is ethically right because we would know as the designer that we would not be creating another issue (allowing other diseases to spread to the patient) due to our design. We are creating the best and safest possible syringe we can.
    2. Pros: We will not create another problem by spreading other diseases because of our design, every patient that receives this vaccine will be sure that it is safe, doctors and nurses will be able to use the syringes properly and safely.
    3. Cons: Less hospitals will be able to afford it and it will be accessible to less people; therefore curing less people than possible, more expensive production, longer to develop.
  3. Make some syringes with the auto-disable for the hospitals that can afford it, and then make some without the auto-disable for the hospitals that cannot afford it. But for the hospitals that will be using the syringes without the auto-disable feature the developer will send an educational plan (written out or on video) on how to properly use the syringes in the safest possible way. Keeping their patients as safe as possible.
    1. Consequence-based thinking/duty based. We will not be giving the unsafe syringes (without the auto-disable) to the hospitals that can afford the safer one. Most of the population will receive the best possible care, and all the population will receive some care (just some with the chance of getting another disease) with limited risk (because of the educational plan that comes with the less safe syringes).
    2. Pros: The hospitals that can afford the safer syringes will have access to them, meaning that some of the population will be receiving the best possible care, will be cured, and will not have to worry about potentially contracting other diseases. The hospitals that can’t afford the syringes will still be able to help their patients with the main issue, and they will be taught on the extra precautions to use to minimize other safety issues that may arise.
    3. Cons: The population will be disproportionately helped depending on wealth (unfair); some people will be given the best care (the people who are most likely less affected), while others will be given mediocre care because they cannot afford better or are in a bad location (meaning they are probably the ones who need the better care in the first place). Nurses may not adhere to the safety plan for the syringes without the auto-disable feature. Other diseases may still spread. 

Step 5: Additional

Step 6: Best Action

The best solution would be to make some of the syringes with the auto-disable for the hospitals that can afford it and make the rest without it for the hospitals that cannot. This is the best solution because everyone will receive some care. Some will receive the safest and optimal care, while the others will still receive care with minimized risk because of the nurses/doctors administering the syringe being taught how to make it the safest they can without the auto-disable feature. Consequently it will provide care to the max amount of people, and duty wise, we will be providing the safest care to the most people that we can and trying to make it safer for the ones who cannot afford the best option. It is the choice that satisfies both ends.

 

Step 7: Venture Implications

  • We will not make as much money as we would have by selling ALL syringes with the auto-disable features, but we are making more than we would have selling only the ones without it, or selling the syringes with it to only a small number of hospitals. As a designer I will be able to make both types of syringes. We may spend more money making two different kinds and having to develop the educational plan, but the country will benefit greatly from it. Our company should do well and sell to all hospitals.