PHIL315-HW4-LMeuninck
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Drexel University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PHIL315
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ProfessorCaribouMaster900
Lily Meuninck
Professor Magyar
PHIL – 315 – 900
6 February 2024
Homework #4
1A) In the case of the Citicorp building several ethical issues arose from the error caught by the student as well as LeMessurier. To start the issue dealing with transparency and disclosure becomes an extremely pressing matter. While LeMessurier came up with a way of
resolving his original faults he only ever told Citicorp about the issues, this shows a layer of not disclosing the information to tenants and stakeholders who could have suffered the consequences of LeMessurier’s actions. Another aspect of ethical concern is public safety was vulnerable to the potential harm to the general public in and around the building if anything were to happen. There is also an ethical duty to disclose the information to stakeholders and the public. LeMessurier also showed his professional responsibility to create a sounder design even though the building met all New York City codes and standards. LeMessuier also originally debated telling anyone about the potential issues because it would risk his reputation and financial status. This shows a conflict of interest within LeMessurier’s life that challenged his ethics and how he would proceed. 1B) In the case of computer programs and moral responsibility in the Therac-25 case several ethical issues related to the Therac-25. To start the patient safety and harm that resulted because of the design and programming errors. The case also raised several questions regarding the design integrity and the quality assurance. The lack of safety measures points to lapses in judgment regarding the design choices made by AECL. It also calls into question the profession and corporate accountability that the engineers, programmers, and manufacturers did not question/address. It shows a lack of accountability and negligence. Lastly, the consent and patient autonomy were not entirely informed. Patients were unaware of all the potential risks regarding the Therac-25. 2A) The most important aspects of the Citicorp case are the key terms. The ones I pulled out
of the case study were: Citicorp Building, William LeMessurier, Quartering Winds, Bolted Joints, 16-Year Storm, Structural Design, and Decision-Making. The Citicorp building is the building in which the structural error was made when designed and completed by LeMessurier. William LeMessurier is the engineer who was responsible for designing the Citicorp building and who was told by a student of the structural error. The quartering wind was a type of wind that would hit the building at a diagonal and cause structural problems. The bolted joints were the connections made instead of being welded. The 16-year storm is a storm with a strong intensity that on average occurs once every 16 years. This is a storm that the Citicorp building would be vulnerable to. Structural design is important because the
design is original to the building and the prime problem for ethical issues. Decision-making is extremely prominent in the case because LeMessurier had to deal with several options in how he was going to approach the situation. The key stakeholders within the case are the
Citicorp owners/investors, William LeMessurier, tenants, the church, students, professors, the general public, and city officials. William LeMessurier had a professional responsibility to
ensure the structural integrity of the building. The owners and investors of the Citicorp building had a large financial stake in the building and were responsible for the success of the building. The Tenants leasing the space had a large investment in the safety and stability of the building. The Church is directly impacted by the decisions made regarding the Citicorp
building. The students became involved as soon as they let LeMessurier know of their concerns regarding the stability of the building. The professor raised initial concerns about the columns’ stability. The general public would be significantly harmed and affected if there
was potential failure. The city officials could have serious legal issues had the building shown
the structural issues after being approved.
2B) The most important aspects of the Therac-25 case study are the key terms. The ones I pulled out of the case study were: Therac-25, Radiation Therapy, Electron and photon acceleration, radiation overdose, malfunction 54, quality assurance, informed consent, and hardware safety backups. The Therac-25 is the medical linear accelerator manufactured by AECL that malfunctioned. The medical treatment involved with the Therac-25 was radiation therapy where the high-energy radiation beams target and destroy cancer cells. Electron and photon acceleration is the technique used to produce the high energy beams for treatment with the electrons used on shallow tissue and photons for deeper tissue. Radiation overdose was the excessive amounts of radiation to patients leading to severe injuries and/or fatalities. Malfunction 54 was the error message displayed when the system was malfunctioning during treatment. The key stakeholders in the Therac-25 case study are patients, healthcare professionals, AECL, engineers and programmers, regulatory agencies, and the general public. All of these people have a large investment in the product and the effect that it has on people. 4A) Several different options could have been used regarding the Citicorp building. They could have immediately enforced the structural elements to address the vulnerability to the quartering winds. They could also have conducted an in-depth detailed structural analysis to
show any vulnerabilities regarding the quartering winds. They could double-check that they are in full compliance with New York City building codes. They could have immediately disclosed the structural issues to all stakeholders involved in the building to be completely transparent. They could have temporarily evacuated or restricted access to the building to keep as many people as safe as possible. 4B) Several different approaches could have been taken to fix the situation, the first is immediate patient safety measures. They could have halted the use of all Therac-25 machines until malfunctions had been identified and resolved while implementing an alternative treatment for those who need radiation therapy. The second case could have been an investigation and cause analysis to help determine the causes of the malfunctions by involving experts in radiation, medical products, and software engineering. A software and hardware update could have been implemented to help prevent future accidents. The
next solution was to be completely transparent and communicate all of the malfunctions and products with all the important stakeholders. The next case is to provide victim support and compensation to all those patients and families that had been affected by the malfunction of the Therac-25.
5A) Approaching the situation using the Code of Ethics and Prima Facie Ethical Principles allows us to show how LeMessurier could have made an ethical argument. Based on the Code of Ethics LeMessurier needed to reassess the initial design because he needed to emphasize his professional competence and integrity. He also needed to disclose the potential harm in order to ensure the safety and welfare of the general public; this goes hand and hand with the need to be transparent and honest with all those invested in the building. Based on the Prima Facie Ethical Principles LeMEssurier needed to avoid causing harm to anyone and the structural vulnerability is a potential threat to public safety. He needed to address the issues in order to promote the overall contribution to improve the well-being of society. This plays hand in hand with being truthful regarding his error and being able to fix the vulnerability fairly. 5B) Based on the code of ethics ACEL directly violated the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence because the primary ethical obligation within healthcare is to promote the well-being of patients while avoiding harming them. The case also violated principles of justice by not addressing the known safety issues in a timely manner. It also violates the patient’s right to access safe medical treatment. Lastly not being transparent and accountable for the malfunctions and risks associated with the Therac-25. Based on the Prima Facie Ethical the Therac-25 case study fails to ensure the safety and efficacy of the medical treatments and devices breaking the duty of care. ACLE also breaks the principle of veracity because they were not truthful and honest regarding the defects and severity of the
effects. Lastly, the case does not uphold integrity when acting in accordance with moral and
professional values even when facing adversity and pressure. The inability to prioritize the safety of patients over financial interests within the company.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help