PRIZM/Guidant Case Study

In 2005, a young man named Joshua Oukrop died as a result of a malfunction in his Prizm 2 DR heart defibrillator. The Prizm 2 DR was manufactured by the Guidant Corporation. The Guidant Corporation had been manufacturing the Prizm 2 DR for several years and in 2002 had taken several steps within the manufacturing process to fix the problem with the devices. Following Joshua Oukrop’s death, Guidant officials met with his doctors and explained that they had known about the malfunction and not recalled the product because of the risk associated with replacing the product. Guidant’s position was that it was just as dangerous to patients to replace the product as it was to keep the product with the risk of malfunction. Statistically, cases of malfunction were very low and if Guidant publicized the issue, they feared a mass-exodus of patients would opt for the dangerous surgery to replace a product that was not guaranteed to fail. Guidant was faced with the dilemma of whether to publicize the information they had on the malfunctioning device and make the consumers of their product aware of the risk or to maintain the company status quo and, within their legal right, not publicize the information. Guidant chose to keep the information private, claiming to have acted in the interest of the consumer. Guidant’s decision, although entirely legal, was unethical. Their inaction led to the loss of a human life. The ethical decision, though it could have been financially difficult in the short-run, would have been to publicize the information on the malfunction and recall the product. Had Guidant acted ethically immediately after they became aware of the malfunction by informing doctors and the public of the risk, Joshua Oukrop’s life may not have been lost and Guidant may not have been entangled the ensuing negative publicity and decreasing purchasing offer from Johnson and Johnson. Guidant’s action (or inaction) was unethical for many reasons. First, Guidant was