1
Becton Dickinson and Needle Sticks Essay
Rayne Everage
BUS 301
Legal and Ethical Issues in Business
Gordana Micevski
April 3, 2013
2
Becton Dickinson, a medical equipment industry giant, should have higher standards
rather than simply earning revenue. Due to the fact that the products they distribute are in high
demand, and used in very risky and high-stress situations, Becton Dickinson has an obligation to
consider the ethics of care, which requires caring for the wellbeing of those we have
relationships with and are dependent on us (Valasquez p. 121).
One of Becton Dickinson’s major objections to government enforced regulations was to
let the market decide. This is known as the market approach and is thought that government
intrusion makes markets unfair and inefficient. According to Valasquez, “In a market, the price
of safety and the amount sellers provide will be determined by the costs of providing it and the
value consumers place on it. Sellers will provide safety if consumers demand it” (p. 306). This is
clearly mistaken in this case because there is no denying demand for safety syringes, yet Becton
Dickinson, Novation and Premier neglected to produce or provide high quality safety materials.
Also, because these three companies had such control of the market through GPO’s (Group
Purchasing Organizations), which deferred the entrance of organizations such as Retractable,
whom were providing higher quality products, which actually meet the consumers demands for
safety.
Also, “The ‘due-care’ theory of the manufacturer’s duties to consumers is the view that
because manufacturers are in a more advantaged position and consumers must rely on them, they
have a duty to take special care to ensure that consumers’ interests are not being harmed by the
products that they offer them” (Valasquez p. 314). The decisions Becton Dickinson made
regarding the safety syringes, from the production and offering only one size, and charging
higher price than it’s worth, refusing to adjust to any safety recommendations are all violations
of the duty of care. Any reasonably prudent person would acknowledge that their product could
3
be improved. If Becton Dickinson had only invested in engineering, and implemented new
manufacturing technology from the beginning, producing a product they could be proud of, a
product that consumers would be comforted using, it would’ve saved the company time, money
and their reputation.
I believe if an organization purchases a patent, they should manufacture that product to
its full extent. By purchasing that particular patent, the company is limiting the availability of
that new technology to be exposed to the market. I find this to be ridiculous. Yes, organizations
have the right to produce the products they choose, however, when there is a patent involved,
and there is a high due care duty to customers, why would one not take full advantage in
providing a product known to be in demand, and would increase safety for those high risk
occupations. I feel that in this case, it is fair to hold Becton Dickinson reliable for injury because
they intentionally limited the production of the new safety syringes, making it very risky for
nurses to operate with two different types of needles and could potentially increase needle sticks.
I feel that Beckon Dickinson, Premier and Novation were working with GPO’s in a
monopoly. They had such control of the market that organizations whom had far better ranked
products, were unable to enter the market at the level that would’ve been if the GPO’s didn’t
exist. It was argued that because the GPO’s actually got paid by the manufacturer, rather than the
consumer of the medical supplies, which increases my interpretation of this being characterized
as a monopoly. It would’ve been too expensive for the consumers or the GPO’s to exit the
contact, which caused them to stay in contracts with these companies who firstly, weren’t
providing the best of the market products, secondly, increased the number of workers who were
affected by work injuries due to the use of these “not recommended” products.
4
I find this whole situation to be disturbing. It is very unfair for such a large organization
to take such little interest in the purpose their product is used for, the potential life threatening
dangers associated with the use of it. I am pleased to know that they had to pay out such large
sums of money to those who it caused harm to. I wouldn’t say it was personally potential, but
any reasonably prudent person, especially management within an organization has to know the
demands and risks incorporated with their product and the industry they are in.
5
References
Velasquez, M. G. (2012). Business ethics, concepts and cases. (Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.