Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Ethical Dilemma: To bug-fix or not to bug-fix? After testing and the…
Ethical Dilemma: To bug-fix or not to bug-fix? After testing and the machine failed they have an ethical duty to fix the software. This machine should have never been tested on cancer patients. However, if the software is unable to be fixed it is unethical to continue to try to fix it or use it and test it on cancer patients ever again.
Not to bug - fix
-
-
-
Pros
-
-
Possible grants and further funding of Atomic Energy of Canada if the device works out and is shown to be an improvement of the current treatment
Bug fixing requires a lot of resources sometimes including contractors so it will save a lot of time
Cons
-
-
-
Distrust of hospital and medical industry if complications do end up injuring or killing the patients
To bug- fix
-
-
Who could be hurt?
-
-
The Atomic Energy of Canada Limited if the big fix is unsuccessful (lose money, bad reputation)
Doctors would be under fire if they allow their patients to use the treatment and it is unsuccessful or something goes wrong
Pros
If treatment software works normal the progression will be faster, so it takes less time to undergo further treatment.
-
-
It will increases the accuracy of the treatment, more patients could be benefit.
Cons
-
Patients might spend more time on getting the treatment with the fixed software than spending time with their families.
-
-
-
Our decision is to not bug-fix because the machine and company have already lost their reputation because of the deaths they caused. No one would ever be willing to give the software another chance out of fear of something going wrong.
-
-