• While trying to develop a low-cost syringe for the developing world context, you (the designer) hit a cross-roads. Constructing the syringe to auto-disable after a single use, an important safety feature, significantly adds to the cost of the design – making it potentially unaffordable for some hospitals and clinics. However, if you don’t add the safety feature, you are enabling the potential for the spread of disease. How do you as a designer proceed?

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state:
-We are developing a syringe for a developing country.
-An additional safety feature making the syringes auto-disable piles up more costs.
-Due to the possible increase in costs, some hospitals and clinics may not be able to provide the syringe to
their patients.
-Not adding a safety feature can lead to a potential spread of disease.
-Ethical issue: How can I, as the designer, develop a syringe model or process that will avoid second uses
to avoid an outbreak of a disease while also ensuring that the accessibility is not stripped away from some
hospitals and clinics that will not be able to afford the extra costs of a safety feature?
–>We want to avoid any form of classism. All the people of this developing country deserve to benefit
from a syringe model or process that wants to avoid any potential spread of a disease.
–>If some hospitals and clinics that have financial barriers are not considered when developing the
safety feature, this could lead to even bigger ethical issues.

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome/Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders:
(1)Hospitals/Clinics (The facilities that will be providing access to syringes and safety measures)
–>Avoidance of a potential spread of disease
–>They will be the ones dealing with the cases of a potential spread of disease in the future if
precautions are not taken in advance.
–>The safety feature (Model or process) is provided, followed, and enforced.
(2)World population (people who are at risk of being infected with a disease spreaded through second uses of
syringes, people using syringes)
–> Reducing the risk of a potential spread of disease
–>Providing a syringe with a safety measure or process taking precaution that can be utilized globally.
(3)Designer (Developer of a safety feature, You)
–>Reputation
–>Want to help communities of all socioeconomic backgrounds to combat spread of disease
(4) Locals (The people of the developing country)
–>Decreasing possible risk of a potential spread of disease.
–>Not excluding anyone

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using
basic ethical core values as guide:

Solution 1: Retractable syringes
Ethical Principle/code: Do not harm or provide any chances of a spread of a disease.
(Consequence-based thinking)
Pros:
-Leaves little room for any potential spread of a disease through syringes
-Medical prescriptions that require syringes to be taken home are not a concern
-Not solely relying on trust that the users will follow guidelines and safety measures
Cons:
-EXTRA COSTS
-Discusses the huge difference based on American websites in step 5 and 6
-Excluding hospitals and clinic that will not be able to afford the extra costs

Solution 2: Incentivize users to return syringes to hospital and clinics to ensure the proper disposal.
Ethical Principle/Code: Do not exclude individuals from services, Do not harm
Pros:
-Educating users on the risks of second uses
-Developing a relationship with users that will make them aware of their role in the action plan
Cons:
-Risking the possibility of second uses, careless and improper disposal of
syringes.

Solution 3: A thermal heater could be installed in each clinic, hospital, and pharmacy which will allow the burning of the used syringes. If a syringe is part of a medical prescription, make it mandatory that the syringes are brought back to receive refills.
Ethical Principle/Code: Do not exclude individuals from services (Justice→ Virtue-
Based Thinking)
Pros:
-No extra costs pile up due to not adding any complex components
-Not stripping away accessibility
Cons:
-may place extra stress on an already overworked group of people: medical
professionals.
– Not completely eliminating threat but reducing it
-People may need to bring syringes home because of daily prescriptions.
–>Interval of time that will allow second uses→ Increasing chances of
the spread of a disease
-Extra stress placed on users
–>Not to lose or get syringes stolen
-Designer has no control over whether the hospitals and clinic will enforce
measures upon users that need to take syringes home.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection:
-I prefer to have a country have more accessibility to syringes than stripping it
away leading to individuals becoming more desperate.
–>Desperation could lead to a possible increase of second uses of already
existing syringes that do not have the added safety feature on it.
-Personal Experience: Philadelphia Prevention Point
–>Philadelphia has a huge issue with second uses of syringes
–>Syringes could be found scattered through local neighborhoods of
Kensington: one of the nation’s largest narcotic markets for heroin
–>Prevention Point provides new, clean syringes because of the potential
spread of disease through second uses of syringes (Used for shooting up
heroin and other narcotics)
–>Great way to address the issue but also not addressing the
issues occurring due to users just throwing the used syringes on
the floor
–>Pavements and streets of a locals
–>What if a child is walking and falls leading her to
accidentally get her wrist punctured by a syringe lying on
the floor

-Box of Retractable syringes (100 ct) retail price: $78.26 compared to a Box of
regular syringes (100 ct) Retail Price: $15-$20

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values.Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class:

The best course of action is solution 3: Installing a thermal heater
-As I analyzed the different solutions, I started to realize how other issues in
the world start to clash with a solution to another problem.
–>ethical decision making led me to developing my solution based on
priorities
–>#1 Priority: Accessibility
-Still risk but bigger issues can arise if people are stripped away from syringes
needed for existing illnesses and diseases people are combatting-
-We are not eliminating the possibility of a potential disease spread but it is
beyond the designers’ duties at this point
-In class, one person brought up how there can be a reach out to non-profits or
government agencies to provide the gap in funding to allow the safety measure to
be accessible for everyone
–>However, this is beyond the role of the designer.
-Weak healthcare system
–>Even the US, a developed country, is struggling
-In class Ideas
–>Khanjan shared one of ideas which was to design a syringe with Color
indicators→ Green:never used, Red: Used
->This is a great approach, but some people who are not given any
access to syringes will care less about what color the syringe
is.
–>Reach out for extra funding
->Goes beyond the duties of the designer
->Who will do this?