Part One (2)

Approaches to Ethical Dilemmas

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Part One

`In the case of an ethical dilemma where a middle-level employee has discovered that the company he works for is merging with a major competitor, I would apply the utilitarianism prescriptive approach. If I found myself in such a situation, I would purchase the stock since I know that I am doing it for the greater good. It is not the joy of any parent to see their children and family suffering. As such, if using the information discovered will prove beneficial to my family, then I would be willing to do whatever it takes to see my family happy. However much the act is wrong and goes against company policy, I would take heart in knowing that I will be helping my family. Hence if I were in the situation, I would use the information about the merger to purchase stock to save my family from debt and pay for my daughter’s treatment.

Part Two

In the face of a health crisis such as the unprecedented coronavirus pandemic, doctors and physicians are faced with the tough choice of deciding who gets to live and who will die. This is the scenario, particularly when hospitals do not have enough equipment, including ventilators, beds, and medical personnel to cater to all patients. I agree with the theory of utilitarianism, which contends that morality has to do with the consequences of our actions hence the right thing to do is give priority to the people with the highest chances of survival. In my opinion, although nobody should have to bear the burden of deciding the fate of people, in the face of such an unprecedented viral pandemic, we must realize that availing scarce treatment to patients with small chances of survival reduces the chances of people with higher survival. In essence, it is only fair that we distribute scarce resources in a way that saves maximum lives.

Part Three

The story of Elizabeth Holmes goes to show the extent to which she went to cover up the fact that her Company Theranos had created and promoted laboratory equipment that was inaccurate and unreliable. Ms. Holmes, alongside his partner, was charged with conspiring to defraud investors and partners of Theranos in a multi-billion dollar scheme. Lying and insisting that the device was carrying out its intended purpose was the cowardly thing to do. Elizabeth maintained that the company was on a mission to revolutionalize how medical tests were done in the laboratory using its innovative methods of drawing and testing blood and interpreting results. The fact that Elizabeth knew that the device was not capable of producing consistent results, yet she had been used on patients suffering from serious conditions does not sit right with me. In the real sense, Theranos used commercially-available analyzers as third-party testers. It was inconsiderate of her to mislead unsuspecting investors into funding her cause with millions of dollars, which was never put to good use. Elizabeth was obsessed with making her company a success at all costs, including firing staff members that dared to cross her.