Case Study Analysis: Birth Control

Solution Preview

1. At what point in the Dalkon Shield's life did unethical practices first become apparent?

In the case study it is apparent that IUD manufacturers elected to choose capitalism over appropriate effective business strategies. Organizations that struggle to remain competitive often take risks that will grant the company the recognition of being the first of its kind to launch a product based on necessity. In the case of Dalkon Shields' productive life cycle, the organization tread on dangerous territory when the company willingly ignored the warning sings that the drug may be detrimental to women.

According to the case study, the first instance occurred during the 70s. Contraceptive effectiveness was a fairly new concept and researchers were continuing to learn potential ramifications of using the drugs. In today's society, contraception continues to be a current necessity, however the risk factors are, to this day, just as life threatening as the Shield. Dr. Kahlenborn confirms this fact when he assesses the various birth control methods used such as shots taken intravenously, orally, IUD's, etc. The detriment of each grows even more severe as time progresses. Dr. Kahlenborn (2014) makes note of the ethical dilemma of utilizing certain contraceptive devices, which include early abortion, pain causing side effects, sterilization, and/or pain during intercourse. As a result of Dalkon Shield manufacturers ignoring the professional expertise of industry leaders, the lives of women who relies on contraception were vehemently changed and life altering.

Reference

Kahlenborn, C. (2014) what a woman should know about birth control. Retrieved June 23, 14 from http://onemoresoul.com/contraception-abortion/risks-consequences/what-a-woman-should-know-about-birth-control.html

2. What should have been done at that point?

Immediately following a potential long-term threat of production should cause organizations to stop producing the product until more empirical data and research is conducted. All too often, a product is rushed to the market only to discover several years later that the product, drug, or service is defective.

General Motors, for example, were scrutinized for ignoring a potential threat in the manufacturing of their vehicles. Apparently, the organization did not purchase a small part that would prevent the likelihood of technical malfunctions. Manufacturers ignored the blatant warning signs several years ago, several years later, the company had to recall a plethora of vehicles due to faulty wiring. Motorists endured fatality and severe injuries as a result. GM issued a press release well after the severe consequences. Some consumers would suggest the press release was given too late. Delkon Shield should take responsibility before it reaches the level of GM or the Endoscopy Center. When an organization hides the truth about a drug or prescription, it is only a matter of time before legal ramifications. For example, Dr. Dipak Desai's shameful misconduct and negligence at the Endoscopy Clinic in ...