Is it better to treat more people by having the syringe be low cost and more accessible or is it better to reduce the potential of spread of disease by including an auto disable function? This is an ethical issue which frames the problem as benefiting many or potentially exacerbating the crisis. The facts presented are that you are the syringe designer, adding the auto-disable function increases the cost, the syringe must be low cost, and not adding the auto-disable is a safety hazard.
The stakeholders in this case are the company, the hospitals and clinics (administration), doctors and nurses, patients, and yourself (the designer).
Company:
motivated to get the product out/ conduct business
earn revenue
help patients/ people afflicted
would most likely prioritize profit and sales instead of general safety
Hospitals & clinics
treat the spread of disease
profit
would most likely prioritize profit and reaching as many people as possible
Doctors and nurses
saving lives/ treating people
would most likely prioritize safety and reduce risk of spreading disease
Patients
receiving treatment at a low cost and risk
would most likely be mixed between people who choose to prioritize treatment and people who prefer to be safe than sorry
Yourself (designer)
maintain job
help patients involved/ saving lives
keep conscience clear by making an “ethical” decision
Alternative courses of action to solve this problem might be to implement a waste disposal system in hospitals, going back to the drawing board to develop the product in another direction, reaching out to other sources of funding, or adopting a more simpler approach to identifying used syringes such as with green/red tabs and designing the training for hospital staff to recognize the meaning or safely use & dispose of the syringes.
Waste/hazard bin disposal system in hospitals
No safety feature but requires bins to safely dispose of syringes
Pros: cheap syringes, greater availability to patients
Cons: need disposal system for waste (another source of costs, barrier to adoption)
Principle: Consequence based thinking
More time to develop product
Different type of safety feature or circumventing need for auto disable
Pros: reduces cost of adding the safety feature, possibly reaches more people with different method of application & decreased cost, safer, potentially lowers barriers of adoption, closed cycle product if recyclable
Cons: more time needed, higher risk of disease spreading in the meantime, potential new issues with different design
Principle: Consequence based thinking
Reach out for more funding
Add safety feature and make cheaper from funding sources
Pros: safety feature added, increase in cost alleviated
Cons: More time before syringes go to market, will still be more costly than not having auto disable, not a sustainable solution
Principle: Relationship based thinking
I think the best course of action would be to return to the design process and pivot in a different direction. Looking at the possible solutions with a cost-benefit analysis, it seems that this solution would be most beneficial holistically as it is also more faithful to traditional ethical values. While this would require more time before the treatment reaches patients, it holds true to the saying that the ends do not justify the means. Perhaps forgoing the auto disable function may enable the syringe to be used earlier and benefit people as soon as possible, but there is a large possibility that the consequences could easily outweigh the benefits should the risk of the disease spreading be actualized. Because this solution involves redesigning the method of delivery, we can circumvent the problem of needing an auto disable function by turning to a new design of say, a vaccine delivered via adhesive patch or spray. This would remove the problem of the risk of using contaminated needles and potentially reach more people because of a reduction in cost or ease of use. At the very least, it would lower the barrier of adoption in that there would be less training involved to teach hospital staff to administer the treatment. Or, if the revised design considers the possibility of recycling the syringes, there would be a closed loop system where disposal of the materials is properly regulated and allow for it to be reused. On the other hand, this approach will inevitably require more time for a new product design and development in which case there is the risk of the disease spreading in the meantime. There are also the potential new issues with a different design to consider. This would achieve a balance between the motivations of stakeholders as the end result would be a lower risk, widely adoptable treatment. Companies and hospitals would be able to earn revenue from the product going to market, doctors and nurses as well as patients would be able to treat and receive treatment with less adverse consequences, and the designer would have engineered an ethical solution without compromising their professional or personal motivations. In the long run, it saves money and trouble because additional time and effort is spent in attempting to allay the consequences to the lives of people who will be directly impacted by the treatment. Addressing the root of the issue initially can cut the need for damage control and is more viable in the long run.
In regards to the venture, this solution will allow for a self-sustaining business model and lighter environmental impact if the product is one which is reusable. Technologically, it will be an innovative breakthrough from the traditional syringe approach and can extend to allowing the venture to stand out in the market for positive economic impact. The venture will also have created a culture of being socially responsible as this course of action will encourage other designers to think twice about any unintended consequences their creations may have and focus on ethically mitigating those consequences, especially when it pertains to human lives. Consumers from the institutional level (hospitals) to the individual level (doctors, nurses, patients) will also become aware of the venture’s practices and assist in building this reputation of good engineering ethics.
One thought on “Fall 2020 – Week 1”
Great work, your analysis was specific and you got right to the point. Next time dive a little deeper into your stake holders motivations both personal and professional.
Great work, your analysis was specific and you got right to the point. Next time dive a little deeper into your stake holders motivations both personal and professional.