Business, Society and Policy Becton Dickinson and Needle Sticks Case Study

                It is important to understand the fact that there is always a relationship between business, society and government in so many ways, which cannot be ignored. Sometimes, this relationship may not be that evident, but it still happens and affects various elements of a society. In this business, society, government (BSG) triangle, society is the most important element, as it is formed by the people, and they are the ones, who face any effects of decisions made by government and business sectors. The society certainly follows some laws as well as traditions, and these trends make up their overall societal structure. The role of government and businesses is crucial in this regard, so when they make any important decisions, they should keep society in view. It is ethical and moral obligation of the governments and businesses to come up with decisions, which are largely in favor of society. They cannot make decisions just protecting their own interest at the cost of society. There might be a question on the role of government in free markets, but still, their intervention is important so that businesses are regulated in favor of society (Lussier & Sherman, 2013)

        This is what happened in the case of Becton Dickinson that government did not play its valiant part, and society could not do anything in this essence of power, that’s why whatever happened in the case, the most damages were experienced by the society, as businesses settled their disputes with each other, and government was late in making deciding policy for the safety of health workers, patients and common people. The people especially health workers were being infected with HIV & AIDS due to unsafe syringes and needle sticks issue, but no one took the pain for them. Becton Dickinson was the guiltiest player in this case, as they worked only to protect their business interests, whereas they could have saved so many lives, if they would have fulfilled their ethical responsibilities. This report will further discuss the case by keeping some relevant aspects and theories in view (Velasquez, 2006)

Analyzing the Case with Relevant Concepts of Business, Society and Policy Becton Dickinson and Needle Sticks

        It has been mentioned earlier that in Becton Dickinson case, there are three players to be analyzed; business, society and government. The BSG triangle is evident in this case, as society was being affected by the decisions made by Becton Dickinson and government. One may argue that in free markets economy, it is the privilege of businesses to take their business related decisions, but when things are largely affecting public in a negative manner, then role of government becomes crucial, and they must step in to stop any ethical and legal violations by the business community. In Becton Dickinson case, the company was playing with the lives of health workers because they had patent to make safe syringes with safe needles of all sizes, but they did not do so, as they were only thinking about their own profits and business. If they would have acted responsibility and ethically towards society, they might have developed safe needle syringes in all sizes to be used in hospitals across United States. They should have adopted higher ethical standards, rather just looking to secure their business revenue and profits. It is clear from the case that products distributed by Becton Dickinson were very important as products were in demand and used in high stress and risky situations, where health workers’ lives were at stake. It means that people were dependent on the products of Becton Dickinson, so they had an ethical and moral obligation to show ethics of care for the well-being of society, as they were the ones, who ultimately generated business for them. Becton Dickinson along with other two companies did not show any responsible behavior in this regard, and they even blocked the business of Retractable Inc. which was producing better, safe and high-quality products. So, they were guilty in every aspect of this case; first by not fulfilling their own responsibility, and then stopping other businesses to provide safety needle and syringes (Dentchev, et al., 2015)

            It is important to look at some theories that how these three players should have played their role in this case. The first theory comes in mind in this regard is “Due Care Theory”. According to this theory, it is responsibility of the producer or manufacturer of products that they must protect the interest and safety of its customers by making sure that their products fulfill all ethical obligations. It is a fact that businesses always have an advantaged position as compared to people, so they have capability to harm the rights of customers. That’s why, it is asked by Due Care Theory that manufacturer/producers must adhere to ethics of care, and keep the safety and rights of customers in mind, while developing any products. If Becton Dickinson case is analyzed in the context of this theory, it is quite evident that Becton Dickinson did not fulfill their ethics of care responsibility (Kolb, 200). The syringes and needle sticks were not safe to use, and Becton Dickinson had the patent to design and produce needles with safety so that health workers, especially nurses could avoid the danger of being infected from HIV, AIDS and various other kinds of viruses. But they only designed and manufactured 3cc syringes, which came with protective sleeves. The statistics from the market showed that usage of 3cc syringes was less than the half of the total use across United States. It meant that a demand for 5cc and 10cc was more important, as nurses used to prefer these sizes for various tasks. Moreover, 3cc syringes provided by Becton Dickinson were expensive, and it was almost impossible for hospitals to use these syringes on regular basis. The price set by Becton Dickinson was too high as compared to standard syringes. So, majority of hospitals could not afford these safe syringes, and kept using standard syringes, which also kept health workers being infected from various viruses.

        There are three stakeholders in this case; business companies like Becton Dickinson, Retractable Inc, then society involving patients, health workers, nurses, and in the end government institutions like OSHA and FDA. It was responsibility of the most powerful stakeholders like business and government to protect the safety and rights of less powerful, the society. The health workers and people were the least powerful in this case, and they were not involved in business or policy decision process. A nurse, whose name was Maryann Rockwood, used the syringes manufactured by Becton Dickinson. She was following a normal procedure of drawing the blood with syringe, but unfortunately, her fingers came into contact with the needle, so she was infected with the AIDS, as she was taking the blood of an AIDS patient. Becton Dickinson was sued by Rockwood on the claim that they had patent and responsibility to design and provide safety syringes with safe needles in all possible sizes. They did not fulfill their responsibility, due to which she infected with AIDS. But the bitter fact of the matter is that case was settled by the company outside the court by paying some amount of money to Maryann Rockwood. Many other such small cases were also settled out of court by the company, which put the real issue on the back burner. If these cases would have been pursued properly, and government would have taken its responsibility, then lots of lives could have been saved in the future. But ethical dilemma of this case was that no one took the pain of others in society. Everyone worked for their interest, and everyone stepped back when their interests were served (Velasquez, 2006)

        Looking at this case, there were so many opportunities during different time periods that if someone would have responded ethically and responsibly, then lots of lives of health workers would have been saved, and issue would have been resolved lot earlier, then it actually settled after so many years. It was found in the end that 3cc syringes provided by Becton Dickinson were below average in quality, and they were not recommended for safe use. It shows the negligence of government authorities that how patent was given to a company, which produced low quality product, risking the lives of thousands of citizens. Moreover, why there was no check and balance to analyze the quality and safety of product. If government would have played active role on this case, things would have been quite different. The government authorities should have made sure that safety syringes with all sizes were available for hospitals to use at a reasonable price. They could have cancelled the patent of Becton Dickinson and patent should have been given to Retractable Inc. to manufacture safety syringes, as their quality was found to be sufficient.

Conclusion on Business, Society and Policy Becton Dickinson and Needle Sticks

            After analyzing all elements of the case, it can be concluded that Becton Dickinson case was painful and sad in so many ways. It was sad to find out that BSG triangle did not work collaboratively, and due care theory was not practiced, which took lives of so many health workers. I was sad that government and business companies being the most powerful did not show ethical and moral responsibility, and they did not perform their due obligations, which led to this case. If stakeholders would have taken things more seriously, and society’s perspective and rights would have been taken into account, then Becton Dickinson would not have been able to breach laws of copyright infringement, and safety syringes could have been available for use lot earlier than it actually did.

References of Business, Society and Policy Becton Dickinson and Needle Sticks

Dentchev, N. A., Haezendonck, E. & Balen, M. v., 2015. The Role of Governments in the Business and Society Debate. 56(4), pp. 527-544.

Kolb, R. W., 200. Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Volume 1. s.l.:SAGE.

Lussier, R. N. & Sherman, H., 2013. Business, Society, and Government Essentials: Strategy and Applied Ethics. 2nd Edition ed. s.l.:Routledge.

Velasquez, M. G., 2006. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. s.l.:Pearson Prentice Hall.