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:

Problem 1: Without the auto-disable safety feature, it might be possible for people to misuse the syringe, enabling the potential for the spread of disease.

Problem 2: If the safe syringe is too expensive, it won’t be used for those for whom it was developed.

 

Step 2:

Hospitals/Medical centers

Doctors/nurses

Patients

Designers

 

Step 3:

• Hospital/med center admin
  • Trying to help as many people as possible within the budget
  • Reputation, 
  • Bring in Profits
• Designer
  • Making sure our design is safe, accessible, helpful
• Patient
  • Easily accessible
  • Easy to use
• Doctors/nurses
  • Do no harm
  • Help as many as possible

Step 4: 

1. Forego the single-use feature and invest in user-focused education
   1. Ethical Principle: If the syringe is too expensive, they won’t get to the individuals who need them most
      1. Pros: less expensive, more available
      2. Cons: Risk of using inappropriately increased; risk of infection

 

1. Offer incentive to users to return syringe after single use for a cheaper replacement 
   1. Ethical Principle: People who need the product can afford it
      1. Pros: cuts down on medical waste, encourages recycling/ safe handling of medical waste
      2. Cons: Risk of using inappropriately increased; risk of infection
2. Pair the single use syringe with a medication and allow users to return the syringe for a refill of the medication (single use epipen return for a refill of the med)
   1. Ethical Principle: Eliminate the risk of inappropriate use
      1. Pros: no risk of spreading infection for misuse of syringe
      2. Cons: largely dependent upon relationship with drug companies, need for method of returning

Step 5: 

• What incentives to doctors/hospitals/medical facilities have for collecting “sharps” already
• How well does recycling work for other things (paper, plastic, etc)?

Step 6: 

The best course of action that satisfies the highest core ethical values is to forgo the single-use feature and replace it with a cheaper reactant paper that changes color once the syringe is used. Then offer the user the incentive to return the syringe after only a single use for a less expensive replacement. The money saved by forgoing the single-use safety measure should be used to: educate the users of the potential risks of using the syringes more than once; simple, inexpensive method for return; and cost-effective replacements in lieu of misusing the single-use product.    

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects. 

A single use syringe will help reduce the spread of infections because the model would visually show a reactant paper attached to the spring marking it used. This will benefit the society. The simplicity of the reactant paper to mark the syringe used is low cost effective adds a technological advantage. Our single use syringes will allow our users/clients to obtain a new one with an incentive that if a used one is brought back, we will reduce the cost of purchasing a new single use syringe. Educating to the people will be the most important element to make our venture work because informing them on how the single use syringe is safe and convenient. An effort to continue educating locals will help pass the significance of our venture and how it works.