1: We are inventing a vaccine that has a syringe application. It would be more costly to incorporate a syringe safety feature that auto disables after a single use but it would be safer in containing the spread of infection. Our market is in a low and middle income, so the cost of the product is something we must keep in mind.
2 and 3: Doctors/Nurses: They want the lowest risk for themselves and their patients.
Patients: They want an affordable and effective treatment.
Government: They want to eradicate the disease because it is a public health issue.
My company: I want to make the highest quality product at the lowest cost possible and I want to sleep at night.
Investors: They want the most money and success of the company.
4: So what can I do? This is a whole disease and I significant impact. I have a couple options, and each of these choices has a set of outcomes (good and bad).
Solution 1 – I want to the most good I can while getting some direct benefit. During discussion with my breakout group, we felt that if we chose to produce the cheaper version of the vaccine and instead put our funds towards training personnel to downgrade the risk of transmission, we would be able to distribute the vaccine at a widespread level and eradicate it through the practice of herd immunity. This would be applying consequence-based ethics in the approach because we are essentially weighing the risk of spreading the disease with the impact of mass inoculation. On one hand, if we vaccinate enough people successfully it would work towards eradication, however this could risk the possibility of contraction during vaccination if the needle was previously used on an infected individual and not cleaned.
2 – Create a vaccine that includes safety and sell it at a higher cost. This solution would be the safest for me even though it would benefit only those who can afford it.
3 – We can make a mixed batch of vaccines and sell the auto disabled ones at a higher cost. This would give the moral dilemma to the hospitals instead of us and transfer responsibility. At the same time, we would not be serving the most people, minimizing impact.
5: I would speak to scientists who have studied the disease, along with hospitals who are buying our product. I would also consult an epidemiologist to see if this was a worthwhile approach and meet with statisticians who can help us estimate the impact of our actions.
6: As an individual, I usually apply virtue-based thinking. So, for this instance, I think giving the vaccine out at the lowest possible cost might be the best idea. Through this lens of ethics, my job is to do the best I can in containing the disease. After step 5, ideally, the cost-benefit analysis would show that mass inoculation with professionals who are trained to safely vaccinate with the low-cost needles would result in mass containment of the disease. Furthermore, it would be cheaper to invent a mechanism that indicates the device has been used once so the risk is known and the doctors and patients can make a more informed decision and incentivize our clients to recycle the needles to our company so we can have a closed loop manufacturing cycle (cheaper production cost). The other decision is less beneficial to me and the other stakeholders – by paying more I am making less and the highest need is not met. This gives more opportunity and autonomy to the stakeholders.
7: Cost of production would go down since we are recycling the vaccine to create new ones. People are more informed in their health decisions (they know if the vaccine was used). Our vaccines will generate less waste because we have a recycling program. Hospital stakeholders would be able to buy more en masse and patients could be treated at an affordable payer price. Herd immunity could eradicate disease.
Nice work! I like your organization and solutions. Next time try to be more specific and include more analysis in steps 6 and 7. Also, let me know if you are planning on posting your blog late or I will have to deduct points.