1) The Booth Pharmaceutical Corporation has to face whether or not to continue selling the drug Vanatin. In participating in the activity, acting as a board member of the Booth Corporation, I along with my other group members were faced with an ethical dilemma. The dilemma was; should the company continue to sell Vanatin even though is has dangerous effects? The drug Vanatin is a major profit producing aspect of the Booth Corporation comprising 12% of its gross income in the United States. Additionally, the corporation makes about the same amount of money in foreign markets under a different name. Booth Pharmaceutical can continue to sell the product and with help from lobbyists get past the FDA. However, the drug is proven to have been the cause of 30-40 deaths per year. The ethical decision comes down to whether or not the lives of 30-40 people per year is worth the revenue generated for the Booth Corporation from Vanatin.

2) If the Booth Corporation decides not to produce the product, than that will be a major loss for their revenue per year. Through discussion, my group assumed that this would probably result in pay cuts and layoffs. The company has no substitute product for Vanatin so they would lose a tremendous amount of customers. If the drug was banned and the sale of Vanatin seized, the other party, the scientists, would have accomplished their goal. Additionally, innocent patients’ lives would be potentially saved. If the Booth Corporation continues to sell Vanatin, patients are put at risk of detrimental side effects, including death.

3) Based on the readings from the text, both “utilitarianism” and “rights” can be applied to the Vanatin situation. The “utilitarianism” perspective is applied if the company takes the action of continuing to produce the product. By doing so, the company will continue to bring in profits. “Utilitarianism” means to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. By continuing to produce the product, the Booth Corporation is looking out for the company. As a result, a good is being sustained for the greatest number. On the other side, the perspective of “rights” is applied here. The company is supposed to look out for the customers of its products as well. The customers have a right to not be at risk while taking the Booth Company’s drug. By continuing to produce the drugs, people’s lives are at risk and thus individual rights are not being protected.

4) Role of J. Booth, Son of Cyrus Booth President, Booth Associate, Consultants
a) In my opinion, I would rate the moral identity of this character as very low.
As president of the company, J. Booth is concerned with the corporate profits. Although deaths are occurring from the drug Vanatin, the fact remains that it accounts for 12% of the company’s gross income. I am assuming that the President is aware of the deaths and other risk of the drugs, but still must act in the interest of making money. He apparently has ways of getting around the FDA using lobbyists and he personally owns 20% of the company stock. I assume that as a human being, he knows that it is ethically wrong to continue producing this drug, but the damages to the company and to his own assets are far too great.

Since I assume this and also assume that Mr. Booth will continue to produce the drug, I can safely conclude that J. Booth has a low moral identity.
b) I believe that J. Booth, although looking out for his own assets, is also influenced by situational factors. The situational factor of how important the drug is to the company further forces him to avoid the ethical course of action. The company does not have an alternative product so they will quickly lose customers and thus profits. To take the ethical course of action would mean giving up a tremendous amount of customers and income. As a result of this, I assume that the character of J. Booth cannot weigh the ethical issue very heavily in his decision-making. He must act solely with the interest of the company’s success.