Group Work
HEATHER.HATTON
Defense:
We the programmers are not morally responsible because we do not fulfill the mental condition in the case of the Therac-25. The mental condition requires negligence or intent. We were neither negligent nor did we intend for any malfunction of the Therac - 25. We did not intend or will to create a machine that would administer lethal overdoses of radiation. We were responsible for programming. We fulfilled our duty to our employer by providing a satisfactory program and the results after our contributions were out of our hand. It was not our responsibility to manufacture the machine or test the machine.
We were not responsible for the testing, the operation, the administration, or the fact that we were reusing a previous code. We were not responsible for the satisfaction of the hospitals with the device, nor did we enter into any contractual obligations of providing and overseeing a product. In this case, we did fulfill all of our duties and standing responsibilities.
Blame:
It is the fault of AECL Management and they are responsible for the malfunctioning machine.
The management is to blame. They fulfilled the causal condition because they created the Therac-25 and distributed it. They fulfill the mental condition in that even tho they didn't intend to cause harm, the condition is fulfilled by the unintended harm and negligence. It was the standing obligation of AECL Management to provide a fully working machine. The sale of a machine is a contractual obligation that AECL entered into with their customers. The problem with the system was that it wasn't fail-safe and good engineering practice dictates that a system should be designed so that no single point of failure will lead to catastrophe. AECL was not thorough in testing and lacked important documentation of potential overdoses. Even though they were in a position to fix all the problems, there should have not been any problems before they put it on the market. They also had a standing obligation to their customers using the machines to give them proper information on the machine and they were negligent to this obligation too because they were giving misinformation to some customers by telling them that overdoses were impossible when they were already being sued by another patient.
AECL's mission statement "...to ensure that the world recieve energy, health, environmental and economic benefits from nuclear science and technology with the assurance that nuclear safety and security are assured."
Social Contract Theory:
A social contract theorist would say that the AECL Management was immoral because the rational self-interested person would want the service that they paid for to be working as intended. Self interested individuals in particular would not want to undergo and operation that could take their lives. Social contract theorists would have in this situation taken the Therac-25 off the market as soon as it was found to be defective and causing deaths.
Rule Utilitarianism:
A rule utilitarianism would say that the AECL Management was immoral because according to rule utilitarianism, an act is immoral if it provides more overall happiness than unhappiness when applied universally. All people would have wanted the Therac-25 to be fully tested before it was released to hospitals. They would also want it pulled off the market for redesign once there was a finding of fault in its operation. They would have wanted manuals produced to ensure proper use by the operators. All of these things would have led to greater happiness. By the AECL not doing the necessary testing, removing the Therac-25 from the market at the first sign of defects, nor providing a fully explanatory manual, they caused widespread unhappiness.
(neg/pos consequence bullets)
Rawles:
The Rawles Theory of Justice would deem the AECL Management as immoral. If a maximum number of rights were distributed equally they are only moral if they do not infringe upon the rights of others. The AECL infringed upon the rights of its customers, the patients, families of the patients, operators, and even us the programmers. They infringed upon rights because everyone should have the right to full knowledge of procedures they may undergo and AECL was withholding information on overdoses from hospitals still using the machines. They also infringed upon the rights of the operators because they prevented them from doing their job because of the bugs in the program. They infringed upon patient rights because no one should have to go through radiation overdose. The difference principle doesn't apply in this case because socio-economic differences do not apply as not everyone in society has an equal opportunity to cancer treatment, but by the maximum rights principle alone the AECL is immoral.
Alcides Santiago Jr
Just a reminder If you haven't already done so already don't forget to submit our paper.
~Al