Question

Rio Business Corporation indirectly pays bribes to representatives of foreign governments to facilitate business. The payments are made to clients who pass the bribe along to representatives of foreign governments. This practice may violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Regardless, Rio’s practice in this regard is

a. unethical only if the payments violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

b. unethical even if the payments do not violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

c. ethical because private parties are involved on both sides of the deal.

d. ethical because the payments are intended to facilitate business.

. Isabel Arnett was promoted to chief executive officer (CEO) of Tamik, Inc., a pharmaceutical company that manufactures a vaccine called Kafluk, which supposedly provides some defense against bird flu. The company began marketing Kafluk throughout Asia. After numerous media reports that bird flu could soon become a worldwide epidemic, the demand for Kafluk increased, sales soared, and Tamik earned record profits. Tamik's CEO, Arnett, then began receiving disturbing reports from Southeast Asia that in some patients, Kafluk had caused psychiatric disturbances, including severe hallucinations, and heart and lung problems. Arnett was informed that six children in Japan had committed suicide by jumping out of windows after receiving the vaccine. To cover up the story and prevent negative publicity, Arnett instructed Tamik's partners in Asia to offer cash to the Japanese families whose children had died in exchange for their silence. Arnett also refused to authorize additional research within the company to study the potential side effects of Kafluk. Was Tamik’s behavior ethical?

      a. Yes, because they only have to consider short-term profit.

      b. No, because they did nothing to protect customers from harm.

      c. Yes, because only a few people we adversely affected.

      d. Yes, because the end justifies the means.

7. In the 1990s, Pfizer, Inc., developed a new antibiotic called Trovan (trova-floxacin mesylate). Tests showed that in animals Trovan had life-threatening side effects, including joint disease, abnormal cartilage growth, liver damage, and a degenerative bone condition. In 1996, an epidemic of bacterial meningitis swept across Nigeria. Pfizer sent three U.S. physicians to test Trovan on children who were patients in Nigeria's Infectious Disease Hospital. Pfizer did not obtain the patients' consent, alert them to the risks, or tell them that Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) was providing an effective conventional treatment at the same site. Eleven children died in the experiment, and others were left blind, deaf, paralyzed, or brain damaged. Rabi Abdullahi and other Nigerian children filed a suit in a U.S. federal district court against Pfizer, alleging a violation of a customary international law norm prohibiting involuntary medical experimentation on humans. Did Pfizer violate any ethical standards?  

      a. Yes. In fact, their behavior should be considered criminal under any civilized law of decency.

      b. No. If they did not violate any laws, then their behavior was ethical.

      c. No. There are always risks with medication.

      d. No. Experiments are always done to test new drugs.

Answer 1

answer-

b. unethical even if the payments do not violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

because bribe is always unethical activity even it is supported by laws or not.

b. No, because they did nothing to protect customers from harm.

because ethical decisions are those which are fair, transparent, and does not harm others. in this case, We find deception,covering of facts, not taking actions to find any sideeffects like company has no issue with such instances and wanted to earn profit only.

a. Yes. In fact, their behavior should be considered criminal under any civilized law of decency.

because experimenting on humans without their consent especially children who are minors violate laws also unethical.

Their experiment also lead to thier death which anyone would not say ethical by any means.

In this case ethical standards that were violated were informed consent, voluntary participation and respect for persons.