Jacques Pelman Cinq387 Blog 1

Jacques Pelman                                                Cinq387 Blog 1                                                     8/25/20

Step1:

You are the designer of a new syringe for low and middle-income hospitals. You must decide between including an expensive safety feature which would allow the syringe to only be able to be used once which would cause some of the hospitals not to be able to afford the new syringe.  There is no deadline stated or anything stating that you cannot add more features.

Step 2 and 3:

You(designer)=make what is asked not to anger investors, do good for the low and middle-income hospitals, and keep the item affordable.

Investors= make a product that does what it is designed to do, make a profit,  and possibly do good              investors are plural and intention may vary)

Hospitals= treat patients and keep costs low

Doctors & nurses= Help patients get well and various personal agendas (plural)

Customers (patients) = want to overcome their illness and to keep their bill as low as possible

Company- keep reputation positive, do good for the low and middle-income hospitals and maximize profits

Step 4:

Put in safety feature

Virtuous framework- This is what a “good person would do” because this would prevent secondary uses and the spread of disease

Pros= releases the item with no time delay and prevents the spread of disease from secondary uses and allows for some hospitals to give vital intravenous medicine

Cons= doesn’t allow all hospitals to buy the item because of cost.

Don’t put in safety feature

Consequence based thinking- “would help the greatest number of people” because this would allow the highest amount of people to get access to vital lifesaving medicine at a lower cost than they wouldn’t be able to get otherwise

Pros= releases items without time delay and allows all hospitals to buy the item.

Cons= doesn’t prevent the spread of diseases from secondary uses

Put in different safety feature that does the same thing as the more expensive safety feature at a lower cost.

Care based thinking- “consider what this specific situation demands” because in the ideal world the goal is to not spread disease and have the lifesaving medicine accessible to the people.

Pros= prevents spread of disease from secondary uses and allows for all hospitals to give vital intravenous medicine

Cons= releases item with time delay

Step5:

Many of my peers were gravitating toward option three because it solved both problems but had a time delay which wasn’t seen as that bad of a cost to perfect the product at a lower cost.

Though it would be unclear how many people would have avoided a negative health situation if the product was released without a time delay.

In my personal experience life, I have tended to gravitate toward options aligned with consequence-based thinking models.  Many of my choices affect just me or a small number of people.  This problem can affect many people so I feel like option two which is the closes to consequence-based wouldn’t be appropriate.

Step 6:

I would choose option three. This is because I would be solving the current problem as a whole without creating new problems.  In option one, I would be creating more inequality by some hospitals being able to use the item and other not for those hospitals the current problem with no access to affordable syringes would continue.  In option two I would be creating new problems by solving the initial one.

These problems can include but are not limited to spreading diseases from using the syringes multiple times and corrupt doctors stealing the multiple-use affordable syringes for drug use.

My group and other groups had similar answers close to option three so there was much support from my peers.  The good impacts for choosing option three would prevent the spread of disease from secondary uses and allows for all hospitals to give vital intravenous medicine.  The bad impact of choosing option three would increase the time that it takes to create the product.

Step 7:

There would be many implications of my solution to the venture’s technology, economic, and environmental aspects.  The implication of the venture’s technology is that since it is different than a normal syringe there would be changes to the manual on how to use it for the hospital staff.  The economic implications of my solution are that it would be more affordable than the solution in option one.  The negative environmental implications of my solution would be the same if not greater than a traditional syringe or option one.  A way this could be solved is by making all or part of the product recyclable and to train the hospital staff on how to properly recycle the product.

3 thoughts on “Jacques Pelman Cinq387 Blog 1

  1. Steps 1-4 looked great. In the outcomes section be more specific in your analysis of what may happen both good and bad. Also in step 7 you are still imagining yourself as the designer not a lehigh student (no points off just wanted to let you know).

    1. Thanks for the feedback. I don’t fully understand what you mean by “In the outcomes section be more specific in your analysis of what may happen both good and bad” for this I slightly altered step 6. I also re-did step 7.

  2. Sorry I didn’t see your reply until now. But you nailed it! You demonstrated understanding of the possible negative implications of your choice.

    Here is your grade. Please do not approve this comment or it will become public.

    Identifies the ethical issue: 10

    Identifies stakeholders and motivations: 10

    Selects best course of action and provides analysis: 10

    Defends best course of action vis-a-vis other approaches: 10

    Analyzes impact of the decision on the venture: 8 – no negative implications besides environmental ones

    Overall: 9.6

Leave a Reply