Ethical Stances Toward Their Customers.

¶ … ethical stances toward their customers.

When one looks at the two cases in the study, Dow Jones and Johnson it initially appears that each company had the best interest of their customers at heart. Each of them stopped production, at least temporarily when the problem became evident, however when one examines the true motive of each company in the decisions that were made.

Johnson and Johnson

In the first case the company was alerted to some products being tainted and seven people died in the area of Chicago because of it. The company was advised not to do anything about it as it was not very likely that it was beyond what had already happened, however the company made the decision to pull millions of dollars worth of Tylenol off of the shelves, nationwide as a precautionary measure.

Before the Tylenol-Cyanide incident companies had not dealt with such issues in the past and the incident at this time prompted Johnson and Johnson set the stage for how future cases should be handled.

In making the decision the company made Johnson and Johnson truly put its customers first and didn't worry about how it would impact the bottom line or the company reputation.

In the second instance, Dow Jones found out that there was a 1 in 8 chance that the breast implants they manufactured and sold would leak. They also had reports that those leaks were the possible cause of health issues in the women who had them. They made the decision about closing the plants that were making the product.

This company didn't do what it did because it had the customers' best interest at heart. They made the decision they made because public horror at the recent findings were about to reduce the demand for the product. In addition it helped them avoid paying out of pocket for large lawsuits from women wearing the product who suffered these health problems.

In addition, a new product was on the market that was safe so the need for the silicon implants was about to become obsolete. Closing the plants was actually a financially sound decision for the company.

The company did not follow any true ethical standard with their actions and they have proven through subsequent handling of lawsuits and concerns that they are only interested in protecting themselves.

Johnson and Johnson have a written ethical policy that mandates the patient's welfare and well being to be the highest priority in the business.

In addition the policy calls for the fair and ethical treatment of physicians that will recommend and prescribe their products.

It is our fundamental responsibility to place the well-being of the patient first by appropriately balancing risks and benefits and to ensure that the best interests of patients and physicians who use our products receive utmost consideration (Johnson www.jnj.com/community/policies/research_development_conduct.htm).

It is our responsibility to help ensure access to our products in the communities where we develop them (Johnson www.jnj.com/community/policies/research_development_conduct.htm)

It is our responsibility to ensure all Company-based, medically relevant product information is fair and balanced, accurate and comprehensive, to enable well-informed risk-benefit assessments about our products (Johnson www.jnj.com/community/policies/research_development_conduct.htm)."

The responsibly to challenge each other with regard to things such as ethical concerns and medical concerns.

One of the reasons there were two different ethical responses was because of the different ways the companies handled their employees.

In Johnson and Johnson employees are encouraged to come forward any time they feel something is being done that does not put the best interest of the client first. At Dow Jones they had top company management show up every three years to ask if there was anything suspicious going on.