The first argument is that Dow and Shell should have suspended production in 1961 before any acceptable solution on safety protection to workers can be installed in the process. Since they knew the potential impacts could be very harmful for humans’ health from the research result in 1961, there was no ethical justification to continue the production considering the principle of moral responsibilities, ethics of care, nonmalenficence and ethics of virtue. Besides, it could hardly estimate the direct …show more content…
There had been multiple indications from the toxicology test research with conclusion on DBCP’s toxic effect on human beings. Those workers were vulnerable with continuous exposure to DBCP required proper protection by employers. The reports from Dr. Torkelson in 1961 also mentioned the further monitoring and studies should be maintained. Considering ethics of care, duty and moral responsibility, Dow and Shell should have continued more in depth and specific investigation and studies to verify the risk and impact to workers. They should drive for further investigation to understand its impact for people’s health and specific safety criteria for workers’ …show more content…
When Dow and Shell decided to continue the production of DBCP even after knowing the potential impact on humans’ health from the initial reports, they should have implemented the manufacturing facilities to ensure sufficient air ventilation and operation procedure to avoid absorbing those toxicity by workers. Considering the ethical principle in beneficence, responsibility, moral duty and ethics of care that companies support workers working in a safety environment, the factory should have provided cleaning shower room before taking off the protective suits. Factory might even need to arrange special clean room with sufficient air ventilation and toxic filtering in certain production area. It required necessary training to workers to ensure their better safety knowledge and handling procedure accordingly. Companies should treat those workers with humanity as an end and not a means under Kant’s theory in categorical imperative and ethics of