The safety issues in the Ford Motor Company - Essay Example

Harley Copp Harley, it seems there is a serious problem. The safety issues you have brought to my attention have the potential for costing the company a great deal of money. The unfortunate decision to keep production designs at their current status means that many lives are in jeopardy and we will be releasing a bad product into the public. There are a number of things the company is considering in making the decision to continue with production for the current design. One of the decisions is the overall costs of putting in a part that would enable the safety of the design to be to standard. The second is the overall public perception of the problem. The odds are the company is betting that any accident that occurs will not be traced back to a design flaw. It would take quite an investigation for anyone to realize that the few accidents that might occur in the Pinto are related. In addition, the company is likely measuring the costs of replacing the part to the amount of money it might cost to pay off those who are injured or die in car accidents. Casualty costs sometimes are less than fixing a problem. I understand your concerns and I am going to take a look at the issue with what you have told me and consider some of the ethical issues you are facing. The first issue that we need to discuss is the idea that a cost/benefit analysis is appropriate where safety is concerned. According to the cost/benefit analysis that has been done on this vehicle and its safety issue with the placement of the engine it is expected that there will be 180 deaths and 180 injured. These deaths are valued at 200,000.00 and the injuries at 67,000.00 (Schwartz, 1990-1991). Although that seems low, even twice that would equal less than the expected cost of putting in the part that would have saved all those lives and injuries. The question that arises is how a dollar value can be put on a death when that death could have been prevented? A death that happens when that is the result of the faulty design, but was not expected nor the system evaluated for that risk may create a dollar value to a jury when taken into a court of law. The problem with anticipating 180 deaths, not to mention the injuries, is that it is tantamount to premeditated murder. How should that be valued? Harley, I hate to say this but I believe it is your responsibility to go to the public before the car is released and let the world know that if they buy this piece of machinery they are vulnerable to this design flaw that can easily take their life. This car has been rushed into production at a quick pace in order to compete with Volkswagen. In addition, I have already heard that they are lobbying in Congress to make sure that certain government safety standards are not made into regulations, which would affect their design and force them to make the car safe (Dowie, 1977). This vehicle is not meeting any form of reasonable safety standards, let alone expected regulations from the government and even though they are not yet in place, they should be considered when thinking about releasing this care into the public. The ethics of an engineer are important to think about as you face this dilemma. It is your responsibility to create objects that are safe to the general public. Having knowledge about a vehicle that is not constructed in a safe manner makes you responsible for that knowledge and for whatever else happens if you fail to act. The first code of ethics for an engineer is that it is the responsibility of the engineer to uphold the safety for the public with which they have been entrusted. This would mean that you have an obligation to make sure this vehicle never emerges into the market. The problem with this decision is that it is going to come into conflict with another ethical mandate that you do not reveal information about the products of your clients and that you “Act as a faithful agent” of your client (Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board, 2012, p. 3). I think that the public safety is going to come before your obligation to your client, however, and in choosing between these two ethical questions you must choose the life of buyers over the confidentiality of your employer. I am saddened by this information and am wondering how Dennis Giola, the field recall coordinator, is reacting to this information. Has he been informed? It is my information that he is only informed of incidents through which he calculates the possibility of further problems. Even if he is made aware of these problems, he may not think to act on them as that is not in his job description (Palmer, 2012). He may not be aware of the problem in context with doing something about it and may not be prepared for dealing with this foreknowledge that is suggesting that many people will die and many more be injured in accidents that involve the rear-end collision in these vehicles. I think that the only solution to this problem is to create an open dialogue with as many people as possible, and possibly go into the public in order to make sure that it is taken care of before the release of the vehicle. Harley, what you are going to have to ask yourself is if the cost of your job, which may be in jeopardy if you release this information, is going to be worth the lives of these people who are in danger. If you feel your job is too important to report these findings until something changes then I fear you are doing what the executives with their cost benefit analysis is doing and that would be highly unethical. You have to ask yourself: If these cars go into production are you going to want to buy one for your daughter? These cars will go to the daughters and sons of other people and you will have to live with the consequences. I wish you well with this dilemma Harley and hope you have the fortitude to make the right decision. References Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board. (2012). Guidelines on the code of ethics. Ottawa On: Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board. Dowie, M. (1977). Pinto madness. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.mo therjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness Palmer, D. (2012). Normal organizational wrongdoing: A critical analysis of theories of misconduct in and by organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Schwartz, G. T. (1990-1991). The myth of the Ford Pinto case. Rutger’s Law Review, 43(1), 1013-1068. Read More