Question #1: Balancing Benefits and Harms of Products on the Market
It is a fundamental principle in pharmacotherapy and the production of drugs that they all have beneficial and harmful effects. The capacity to balance the benefits and harms of products on the market is fundamental to making informed decisions to precedent to follow. This can be implemented through the use of scientific data that examines both sides to determine the potential of harm and its magnitude to outdo the intended benefits. The use of scientific data provides a comprehensive analysis of the appropriate measures to take in the wake of profound harm caused by attempts to achieve any particular benefit. Respective benefits have subsequent harm or risk potential that must be addressed accordingly.
The use of scientific data is critical to determine whether to continue selling products on the market. This is based on the proof that the benefits outdo the harms, or the respective harm can be developed as a remedy to mitigate the potential danger. In turn, the risk of harm is mitigated and resolved through additional measures that go hand-in-hand with the primary benefit of the primary product. Therefore, the use of scientific data is the most appropriate mechanism to balance the benefits and harms of products on the market.
Question #2: Moral Problems in Compensation Instead of Assigning Fault
The approach does not present moral problems as it is based on the individual decision and choice of the products they purchase on the market. The provision of sufficient information to the consumer allows one to make informed decisions on the products they purchase. This eliminates the moral and legal responsibility of the manufacturer or seller should there be problems in the future. Instead, the consumer should take the responsibility for their choices as they were informed of the potential dangers. However, irrespective of the warning, the consumer’s decision to purchase the less expensive but riskier products instead of, the more expensive and safer goods.
The moral responsibility lies in creating awareness on the status of the products. The rest of the decisions lies with the consumer as they are not obliged, forced, or coerced to purchase the product. This is done by their volition and willingness to purchase the less expensive products. Hence, the subsequent repercussions should be bourn and sustained without assigning fault. The compensation, therefore, should attract a lower amount in case of injuries and harm as a result of using the product where the company deems it necessary.
Question #3: Underdeveloped or Missing Eyes
In the case of Canadian children born with underdeveloped or missing eyes, the claim of exposure of the mothers to the microscopic amounts of Benlate should be extensively examined. The standard proof in the case should entail the evidence to indicate that the mothers were exposed to the orchard farm during and after Benlate was sprayed. The proof is vital to establish direct contact with Benlate to be the cause of the problem. Also, an indication of drinking water passing through the orchard farm (unknowingly) should be essential to indicate potential contact with Benlate. However, proof of Benlate being airborne to reach nearby areas and towns would be critical to establishing contact with the chemical.
As a member on the board of DuPont, assuming the responsibility of the claim would trigger massive scale litigations from all individuals with similar products. Some might connect the products sold across the world as the cause of such problems following months of consumption of the products. Therefore, it is appropriate to fight the claim until substantial evidence that is scientifically proven is brought to light to establish the connection between Benlate and the problem. Otherwise, the quashing of litigation through legal means is fundamental. The capacity to improve the company’s reputation can be attained through a proposal to initiate a corporate social responsibility program to provide support to affected communities as a way to show DuPont’s commitment to the safety of all people.
Question #4: Third World Country Purchase of Benlate at a Discount
As a member on the board of DuPont, I would strongly oppose any arrangements to have any quantity of Benlate products sold to the Third World country. This is informed by various reasons that prompt fierce opposition to such a plan. First, following the scientific proof of the harm Benlate product causes to humans, it not only illegal to take such an action, but it is morally wrong. This is bound to erode the reputation of the company as only concerned with profit at the expense of protecting human life. The repercussions for such a move are bound to hurt the company in the long term. The company’s reputation, image, and brand identity are at risk of being tarnished in the long run.
Second, this is a high level of corruption with the third world’s corrupt officials that are unaccountable to the public. This is a disserve to the human race and the course in which the company set out to do in contributing to a better world. As well, despite the assurance of immunity from any potential liability, the harm that such a move is bound to cause is profound and unwarranted.
Third, this comprises of being involved in a conspiracy to harm millions of people in the country. This is an unacceptable decision to be executed by a reputable company such as DuPont. Thus, they strongly oppose the move to sell the products that have been proven to be harmful irrespective of any assurances.
Question #5: Environmental Point of View
From an environmental point of view, the use of chemical pesticides is not useful as it has great adverse effects. The use of chemical pesticides has the potential to damage agricultural land through the harming and killing of beneficial insect species in the soil. Also, soil micro-organisms and worms that are essential to maintaining the soil health and limiting pest populations naturally are bound to be harmed through the use of pesticides. Therefore, the long-term use of pesticides causes the land to become unsuitable for the productivity of crops and animals.
The measurement of the efficiency of farming with fungicides against the natural approach is based on the production yields. The quantity of yields promotes the capacity to sustain food security for growing populations. The increase in yields justifies the use of fungicides so long as they are safe for consumption.