My Opinion About The Case Of The Sole Remaining Supplier

My company supplies the pacemakers with transistors that they use to build heart pacemakers. The pacemaker technology is in its infancy and the maker is having different type of problems which resulted in many incidents. The incidents were caused by doctors that don’t know how to install the pacemaker because they lack the appropriate training. Also, the Quality assurance phase is very weak at the production level because the engineers are not testing the hardware rigorously.

As a result, my company feels that we will be sued because we are a supplier of the transistors used on the pacemakers. During our board meeting, the members have different opinions about this issue. Some members want us to stop supplying the pacemakers because they believe that it a bad deal that will eventually drive us to bankruptcy. They think that we are not making enough money selling the transistors to the pacemakers to take the risk to be sued by the victims. Also, they believe that the only obligation is to our shareholders, it is not our problem to think about the kids that died or the doctors that don’t know how install the pacemakers. We are only a transistor supplier; we didn’t invent this product to be liable for its problems. On the other hand, we have another group including myself that believe we have a duty to the people that need the pacemakers, People who have abnormal heart rhythm and arrhythmias. We shouldn’t get out of this business but instead confront the problem and find an effective solution for the issue. Especially, we are the only sole remaining suppliers that provide the pacemakers with transistors.

This is one of the most difficult decisions that we have to make during this board meeting. We have an ethical conflict: A group that takes their duty to society very seriously because they understand that the product we sell is a very important component of the pacemaker. As a result, we play an important role in saving people’s lives. We don’t want to cause the failure of this amazing product in the market. We believe that the pacemaker will revolutionize this industry and save millions of lives. The questions that come to surface are: How can we keep supplying the maker without jeopardizing our business? How can we come to an agreement that will satisfy the shareholders and the public? I know that it will be a very difficult task to accomplish but I am convinced that we will successed as long as we stick to our values and prove to the rest of the team that we are making the right choice.

The first step, we need to involve the organization’ shareholders and our lawyers in the discussion, it will be an opportunity to explain the situation to the shareholders and get their feedbacks. We will be able to understand what they think about this ethical question and the side they are leaning toward…..Our lawyers will cover the legal aspect of this matter, they will go over the different scenarios and explain to the board what will happen during each scenario. Of course, we should never lose focus on the ethical question that we are obligated to sell the product to the pacemaker because this device is so critical in maintaining the heart rhythms. People can resume a more active life style thanks to this device.

The second step is to propose a strong recommendation to the board members, shareholders and lawyers. We know that the two main causes for the deaths are the lack of training and also the product testing before the distribution phase. The pacemaker should set up training sessions for doctors so they can understand how they