Question

What was the initial ethical dilemma faced by the decision maker in this case?

In 2004, Becton Dickinson, the world’s largest manufac- turer of medical supplies and equipment agreed to pay Retractable, a small innovative company making safety syringes, $100 million dollars for damages it had inflicted on the small manufacturer. The year before, Premier and Novation, two of the largest GPOs (general purchasing organizations that buy supplies for hospitals and clinics), had paid Retractable an undisclosed sum of money for damages they had inflicted on the small company by co- operating with Becton Dickinson. Much more important, and uncompensated, however, were the injuries the three companies were said to have inflicted on countless health workers who had contracted AIDS and other blood-borne diseases because the three companies had blocked Re- tractable from selling its safety syringes to the hospitals, medical clinics, and other health organizations where they worked. To add insult to injury, in 2009, Becton Dickin- son was found by a jury to have copied Retractable’s pat- ented safety syringes and to have sold them to the very organizations whom earlier it had not allowed to have ac- cess to Retractable’s revolutionary safety syringes......

I can't post the whole case as it is too long to post. But you can find the case similar like this on Chegg. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Answer 1

The decision maker in this case is the federal court.

Becton Dickinson, a company which produces medical supplies and other equipements. Included in these supplies are needles and syringes for drawing patient blood for testing. Sometimes during the drawing of blood, the nurses and doctors prick themselves from same needle and stand at risk for getting the same disease- such as AIDS or Hepatitis.

Becton Dickinson found out that their own syringes, despite revisions ans safety locks being added, were not really effective at stopping these accidental prickings and weres till risky. At the same time, another small company called retractable made a new design of syringe which were far safer and prevented almost all accidental prickings.

The court faces the ethical dilemma that on one hand, retractable inc's product is bound to save lives and is very helpful for medical practitioners. On the other hand, Becton Dickinson is not doing anything illegal. They are working with GPOs which themselves are preferred by the hospitals. So technically its the hospitals which are deciding not to buy from retractable. If a buyer is not willing to buy from a seller, despite the seller's product being clearly superior, what can the court do? Thats the dilemma the court faces.