Ethics bowl for environments of the organization

Margaret goodearl scenario

• supervisor, Donald LaRue, is also the current supervisor for environmental testing. The group that LaRue and Goodearl together oversee test the chips that Hughes makes in order to determine that they would survive under the drastic environmental conditions they will likely face.
• Rigorous testing of the chips is the ideal, but some chips (the hot chips) get in line ahead of others. Goodearl has found out that over the last several months, many of these tests are being skipped. The reason: Hughes has fallen behind in the production schedule and Hughes upper management and Hughes customers have been applying pressure to get chip production and testing back on schedule. Moreover, LaRue and others feel that skipping certain tests doesn’t matter, since many of these chips are being used in systems that are in the testing phase, rather than ones that will be put into active use.
• A few months after Margaret Goodearl started her new position, she was presented with a difficult problem. One of the “girls” (the women and men in Environmental Testing at Hughes), Lisa Lightner, came to her desk crying. She was in tears and trembling because Donald LaRue had forcefully insisted that she pass a chip that she was sure had failed the test she was running.
• Lightner ran the hermeticity test on the chips. The chips are enclosed in a metal container, and one of the questions is whether the seal to that container leaks. From her test, she is sure that the chip is a “leaker”—the seal is not airtight so that water and corrosion will seep in and eventually damage the chip. She has come to Goodearl for advice. Should she do what LaRue wants and pass a chip she knows is a leaker?

Hughes argument

Hughes group summary

• Make a decision from Goodearl's perspective and justify it using the ethics and feasibility tests.
• Do a socio-technical system table on Hughes. You may want to respond to the one Huff does at ComputingCases.org. "Procedures" is an important category here. Can you guess why?
• Respond to the Hughes argument section by offering arguments for and against whistle-blowing. Again, the website, Computing Cases, is helpful here. Be sure to give the material from the IEEE on carrying out dissent a careful look.

Therac-25

Fritz hager's decision point

• Therac-25 was a new generation medical linear accelerator introduced in 1983 for treating cancer. It incorporated the most recent computer control equipment. Therac-25’s computerization made the laborious process of machine setup much easier for operators, and thus allowed them to spend minimal time in setting up the equipment. In addition to making setup easier, the computer also monitored the machine for safety. With the advent of computer control, hardware based safety mechanisms were transferred to the software. Hospitals were told that the Therac-25 medical linear accelerator had “so many safety mechanisms” that it was “virtually impossible” to overdose a patient.
• You are Fritz Hager a hospital physicist working for the East Texas Cancer Center in Tyler, Texas. It has been brought to your attention that there is a strong probability that a patient—possibly two—has received an overdose of radiation during treatment with the Therac-25 medical linear accelerator. Upon notifying your supervisors, East Texas Cancer Center officials, you have been told that you cannot talk with anyone outside of the hospital about this situation. This even includes interviewing the first person who suffered the possible overdose. You have three responsibilities in this situation: (1) as hospital physicist you are ultimately responsibility for any untoward results produced through the operation of the Therac-25 machine; (2) you are responsible for finding out what happened and, if the patient received an overdose, what caused this overdose; (3) you are also legally responsible, as an employee of the East Texas Cancer Center, for acting as the loyal agent of your supervisors who have told you unequivocally not to communicate with any outsiders concerning this issue. What should you do?
• Design a course of action from Hager’s perspective given the situation described in the decision scenario. First, broadly define Hager’s problem and explore its ethical dimensions. Second, design a course of action for Hager that addresses the responsibilities mentioned just above. Is it possible to carry out the first two responsibilities while keeping the matter “in house?” Finally, include in your presentation a discussion of the values that you feel your solution embodies.
• (To help you with this scenario please consult with the interview with Fritz Hager at Computing Cases.)