AIDS and Needles Case: Ethical Dilemma Analysis
This paper examines the ethical dilemma presented by Becton Dickinson's decision to market its Safety-Lok Syringe only in a 3cc size despite holding an exclusive license for protective-sleeve technology across all major syringe sizes. After identifying the factual background — including the occupational HIV and Hepatitis B risks faced by nurses and doctors through needlestick injuries — the paper applies four ethical frameworks: Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Ethical Rights, and Distributive Justice. Each framework is used to evaluate Becton Dickinson's conduct and the competing interests of healthcare workers. The paper concludes with a practical recommendation for how the company could have acted both profitably and ethically.
- Introduction to Ethical Dilemmas: Defines ethical dilemmas and business ethics context
- Facts Underpinning the Ethical Dilemma: Needlestick risks and occupational HIV exposure facts
- The Decision-Maker and Conflicting Demands: Becton Dickinson's marketing decisions and pricing conflicts
- The Initial Ethical Dilemma Faced by Becton Dickinson: Company's delayed response to syringe safety crisis
- Four Ethical Frameworks Applied to the Case: Utilitarian, Kantian, Rights, and Justice analyses
- Final Recommendation: Proposed ethical and profitable alternative strategy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Applies four distinct ethical frameworks systematically and consistently to the same case, allowing direct comparison of how each approach evaluates the same conduct.
- Uses a structured step-by-step format within each framework, which makes the analytical logic transparent and easy to follow.
- Grounds abstract ethical theory in concrete case facts — specific syringe sizes, pricing figures, and dates — giving the analysis credibility and specificity.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates multi-framework ethical analysis: rather than committing to one theory, it applies Utilitarian, Kantian, Rights-based, and Distributive Justice lenses in turn, showing how each yields a distinct but complementary critique of the same corporate decision. This technique is standard in applied business ethics and allows the writer to acknowledge trade-offs no single framework can capture alone.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a general definition of ethical dilemmas, then moves through five numbered sections: factual background, identification of the decision-maker, description of the initial dilemma, the four-framework analysis (each with enumerated steps), and a final practical recommendation. The conclusion is forward-looking, proposing an alternative business strategy that satisfies both profitability and ethical obligations.
Introduction to Ethical Dilemmas
Ethical dilemmas, also referred to as moral dilemmas, are circumstances that require a decision to be made between two choices — a moral act and an immoral one. According to a common assumption underlying ethical dilemmas, the person choosing will follow societal norms — such as the procedures of law or religious teachings — while making a choice that is ethically impossible (Your Dictionary, 1996–2016). Employees often have to choose between their company's success, given strong pressures to perform, and the temptation of an easier but less ethical path. Because employees face many such dilemmas throughout their careers, companies should arrange training and assist their staff in making the right decisions (Mann, n.d.).
People can make ethical decisions only when they first recognize an issue or situation as having an ethical dimension. Developing this awareness of ethical issues should therefore be the first step toward sound business ethics (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2011, p. 61).
Facts Underpinning the Ethical Dilemma
As observed in the presented case, the initial ethical dilemma is faced by medical practitioners. On one hand, they confront questions of life and death as patients in their care fight for survival; on the other hand, they face serious risks to their own health and safety. Their moral obligation — enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath — is to save their patients, while their personal safety pulls them in the opposite direction. Several facts underpin this ethical dilemma as it exists within the medical profession:
- Doctors are vulnerable to HIV infection by accidentally pricking their fingers with a needle, scalpel, bone fragment, or any other sharp instrument while operating on AIDS patients.
- Nurses face the highest degree of risk, as their routine work includes drawing blood, administering injections to AIDS patients, and removing intravenous lines — all activities that can easily result in an accidental needlestick.
- Needlestick injuries occur frequently in large hospitals; approximately 80% of reported occupational exposures to HIV among healthcare workers have been attributed to such incidents.
- Needlestick injuries pose risks not only of HIV infection but also of numerous other bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic infections, among which Hepatitis B is another particularly dangerous disease.
- Nurses work in high-stress emergency situations that require rapid action, and they are frequently pressed for time as they must attend to a large number of patients with constantly changing demands and needs.
The Decision-Maker and Conflicting Demands
Becton Dickinson, one of the largest manufacturers of medical supplies in the United States, was the primary decision-maker in this case. After completing field tests in 2001, Becton Dickinson had to decide whether to market new syringes with protective sleeves and, if so, in which sizes. Hospital personnel and nurses who viewed the product were enthusiastic and positive about its potential. Although the protective sleeve was compatible with all major syringe sizes — including 1cc, 3cc, 5cc, and 10cc — the company decided to market only a 3cc version of the syringe with the protective sleeve. The 3cc syringe, however, accounts for only about half of all syringes used, and healthcare workers preferred the larger 5cc and 10cc sizes when drawing blood. Despite these conflicting demands from hospitals and nurses, the company launched only the 3cc version in 2002 under the trademarked name Safety-Lok Syringe.
Furthermore, despite warnings from medical practitioners about pricing — as hospitals would struggle to adjust their budgets if the safety syringe were too expensive — Becton Dickinson decided to sell the 3cc safety syringe to hospitals and doctors' offices for between 50 and 75 cents in 2001. While no precise information was available on the manufacturing cost, estimates placed it at between 13 and 20 cents each. The company again ignored the demand by hospitals for lower pricing. It was only by 2003 that the price was reduced to 26 cents per unit.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.