-PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS-
DQ 1
The company you work for makes filters for kidney dialysis machines. Several shipments of filters do not meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards. Since they do not properly filter the kidneys, they cannot be sold in the United States. In order to at least partially offset the cost of production, the company decides to sell these filters in certain Third World countries where the standards are not as stringent. Present the argument as to why the company has the legal and ethical right to sell these filters in Third World Countries. Present the argument as to why the company should not sell the filters in a Third World country, on legal and ethical grounds.
1) The company may be depending on the fact that the people who end up using the faulty filters may not have the funds, ability or knowledge to take action against the company for selling them the filters.
2) An Illinois company had defective filters for dialysis. When they realized that they could not sell them in the U.S., they decided to sell them in a third world country. The General Counsel of the company did not think this was right, but the company still went ahead with the sale. When they did, the attorney contacted governmental authorities as he believed he had a duty to disclose this action since he felt the filters may have endangered lives. In Illinois, when an attorney has knowledge concerning a matter where another person’s life, health or safety may be endangered, the attorney has an obligation to ignore the attorney-client privilege and reveal such information. When the General Counsel did so, the company fired him. He then sued for retaliatory discharge (firing someone because they “blew the whistle” on the company, etc.). The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that, while the attorney may very well have had an obligation under the ethics rules governing attorneys to disclose the information since he felt that lives may be endangered, the company still could fire him. This is due to the belief that a company must feel free to be able to confide in their counsel under the concept of attorney/client privilege and not fear disclosure of that information to governmental authorities or the public. This means that attorneys may have an ethical obligation to disclose information, but no job security for doing so. An interesting predicament.
3) The ruling was not based on where the product was sold. It was based on the nature of the relationship between an attorney and his/her client.
