The Dalkon Shield was an intrauterine device that was supposed to hinder conception. When A.H. Robins Company marketed the device, it quickly became popular as it was believed to be a safer alternative to birth control pills. However, three years down the line the device was blamed for developing numerous complications among users. Following many lawsuits, the device was removed from the domestic market. Robins managed to work out a deal with the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) whereby the device would be sold albeit cheaply to developing countries for the purpose of birth control. The actions of the two institutions ask a lot of questions. Did AID and A.H. Robins Company act in a morally permissible manner? So as to answer this question, various psychological principles will be evaluated in this paper.
The principle of the Greatest Happiness dictates that actions are moral if they lead to happiness and immoral if they do the opposite. Nubcaek argues that “A person is considered moral when their actions tend to promote the utility of the general public in accordance with the Greatest Happiness Principle” (2011). Therefore, for the decisions of the two organizations to be moral, they must have created happiness for themselves and also the people that were to be affected by the drug. Since the principle was to develop by John Stuart Mill, it is widely based on his way of thinking. The core of this principle is to ensure that the overall majority attain utility (happiness as opposed to pain). Thus comparing the Dalkon Shield situation to Mill’s way of thinking the consequences of the action would have to be determined.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On a positive note, the policy was aimed at reducing world hunger through the reduction of population and also to decrease the number of women who die during childbirth. Utilitarianism employs the use of approaches that enforce effectiveness rather than attraction. The IUD was sold extensively across 42 countries due to the huge discounts that lowered its price significantly. Research suggests that despite the device bringing about complications and defects among women it also was deemed ineffective. Thereby, the Dalkon Shield brought about pain among patients who were the majority in the situation. Mill would arguably consider the policy unethical as it ended up bringing the opposite of happiness no matter what the intentions of the two organizations were.
Immanuel Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain actions (murder) were unacceptable even if they brought utility in the end. Kant dubbed that morality should be based on certain rational standards which he called Categorical Imperatives (CI). CI are certain commands that everyone should follow so as to ensure morality is maintained. Therefore, before a Kantian decides to act, they need to ask themselves two questions:
1. Will rational individuals act in the manner they intend to act?
2. Are the actions expected to achieve universal human goals rather than one’s own intentions?
Moreover, Kantians are required to act only in accordance with the maxims they set for themselves. A maxim is a principle which individuals hold that determine their actions. Going back to the Dalkon device case, the maxim of the policy was supposed to reduce birth rate while at the same time being a safer alternative to birth pills. As a Kantian, I would look into various categories before I conclude that the actions were unethical. Firstly, both the companies went against the Categorical Imperatives that are in place. They sold the device even though it was clear that it was harming women and in some instances it led to death. Following the maxim set the policy failed terribly as it ended up not lowering the birth rate while being evidently more unsafe than birth contraceptive pills. In that perspective, it is safe to say that the policy would have been deemed immoral by many Kantians.
In conclusion, A.H. Robins Company and AID went astray when they made the deal to supply the Dalkon Shield to developing countries when they knew of the medical consequences. In my opinion, the policy was more than unethical, and legal measures need be taken in those who were involved. The A.H. Robins Company aimed to make a profit at the expense of innocent woman residing in third world countries. If that is not the epitome of immorality then what is?
Reference
Nubcaek, N. D. (2011). Writing Prompt 03- Utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://parenethical.com/phil140win11/tag/greatest-happiness-principle/.
