Question

From Moral Issues in Business: Seventh Edition, by William H. Shaw and Vincent Barry;
Wadsworth Publishing; Belmont, CA, 1998, pp. 211-213.
Asbestos is a fibrous mineral used for fireproofing electrical insulation, building
materials, brake linings, and chemical filters. If exposed long enough to asbestos
particles—usually ten or more years—people can develop a chronic lung inflammation
called asbestosis, which makes breathing difficult and infection easy. Also linked to
asbestos exposure is mesothelioma, a cancer of the chest lining that sometimes doesn’t
develop until forty years after first exposure. Although the first major scientific
conference on the dangers of asbestos was not held until 1964, the asbestos industry
knew of its hazards more than sixty years ago….Working on behalf of Raybestos-
Manhattan and Johns-Manville and their insurance carrier, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Anthony Lanza had conducted research between 1929 and 1931 on 126
workers with three or more years of asbestos exposure. But Brown [secretary of Johns-
Manville] and others were not pleased with the paper Lanza submitted to them for
editorial review. Lanza, said Brown, had failed to portray asbestosis as milder than
silicosis, a lung disease caused by long-term inhalation of silica dust and resulting in
chronic shortness of breath. Under the then-pending Workmen’s Compensation law,
silicosis was categorized as a compensable disease. If asbestosis was worse than silicosis
or indistinguishable from it, then it, too, would have to be covered. Apparently Brown
didn’t want this and thus requested that Lanza depict asbestosis as less serious than
silicosis. Lanza complied and also omitted from his published report the fact that more
than half the workers examined—67 of 126—were suffering from asbestosis.
Meanwhile, Sumner Simpson [president of Raybestos - Manhattan] was writing
F.H. Schulter, president of Thermoid Rubber Company, to suggest that several
manufacturers sponsor additional asbestos experiments. The sponsors, said Simpson,
could exercise oversight prerogatives; they “could determine from time to time after the
findings are made whether we wish any publication or not.” Added Simpson: “It would
be a good idea to distribute the information to the medical fraternity, providing it is of the
right type and would not injure our companies.”…. Industry officials were concerned
with more than controlling public information flow. They also sought to deny workers
early evidence of their asbestosis….When lawsuits filed by asbestos workers who had
developed cancer reached the industry in the 1950s, Dr. Smith [medical director of a
Johns-Manville plant in Canada] suggested that the industry retain the Industrial Health
Foundation to conduct a cancer study that would, in effect, squelch the asbestos-cancer
connection….Shortly before his death in 1977, Dr. Smith was asked whether he had ever
recommended to Johns-Manville officials that warning labels be placed on insulation
products containing asbestos. He provided the following testimony:
The reasons why the caution labels were not implemented
immediately, it was a business decision as far as I could
understand. Here was a recommendation, the corporation
is in business to provide jobs for people and make

money for the stockholders and they had to take into
consideration the effects of everything they did, and if
the application of a caution label identifying a product
as hazardous would cut out sales, there would be
serious financial implications. And the powers to be
had to make some effort to judge the necessity of the
label vs. the consequences of placing the label on the product.

Of the multiple moral issues involved in the, "Living and Dying with Asbestos" case study,

which do you think represents the morally worst action on the part of the asbestos

companies' management and explain why. Here're some of those moral issues:

1. Hiding the medical testing results from the public.

2. Hiding the medical testing results from their employees.

3. Fabricating some of the medical testing results to prevent having to pay
disability insurance to employees.

4. Claiming that because they paid for the medical testing, it was nobody
else's business what they did with the results. (This isn't explicitly in the case study, but did happen.)

Answer 1

Life of any person is much more precious than anything in this whole world. Money will come and go but life can't. There are many people in their world who take chance of other's life for their own profitability.

In the case of " Living and dying with asbestos ", a big injustice was done with the employees of asbestos industry. Owner of such industry have full knowledge of the hazard of asbestos that it will lead to a chest cancer but even then also they didn't take steps in order to tackle with this hazardous diseases.

The moral issues on the part of the asbestos companies management is claiming that because they paid for the medical testing, it was nobody else's business what they did with the results. Medical results for asbestos is not just only medical result, it was an opportunity for the company to rectify their mistakes, life of any person is not just a game that whoever want to play, can come and play with the life of any person. It's their huge mistake which they want to cover with their money. Money is not everything, if life is there then money can be earned but if money is there then life can't be earned. Playing with the life of employees create an environment of distrust, after all this none of employee is going to trust on that particular organisation again.

Every organisation should also have some ethical and social responsibility, so according to that also, asbestos industry should reveal such hazard prior in order to save life of their employees. It is an unlawful act of organisation related to asbestos.