Therac-25 Case Ethical Dilemma revolves around the potential harm caused to patients due to software-related issues. The software, which was responsible for controlling the medical linear accelerator, had critical flaws that resulted in patients receiving overdoses of radiation. One ethical dilemma that arises from this scenario is whether hospitals choose to offer this technology given that there is a risk of giving patients an overdose of radiation.
The hospital offers the treatment to patients with the current software.
Stake Holders
Hospital
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Therac-25 Producers/Marketers)
The Patients
Healthcare workers
Patient's Loved One's
CEO / Management
Charities / Funders
The Hospital does not offer the treatment.
Who's Rights may be abridged?
Who Benefits?
Who could be hurt?
Patients: Their right to access medical treatment is potentially abridged if the hospital refuses treatment due to software concerns.
Hospital: They have a responsibility to ensure patient safety, potentially affecting their decision to use or not use the equipment.
Patients: Their safety may be safeguarded by avoiding potential errors in treatment.
Hospital: Avoiding potential lawsuits or ethical dilemmas by not using questionable software.
Patients: Denial of treatment could deprive them of potentially life-saving or necessary medical care.
Hospital: It might face criticism or legal implications for not offering full treatment options.
Cons
Pros
Patient Safety: Avoiding potentially faulty software can prevent harm to patients.
Ethical Responsibility: It upholds the hospital's responsibility to prioritize patient safety.
Denial of Treatment: Patients might be deprived of necessary medical care.
Legal and Ethical Issues: Refusal to use equipment might raise legal and ethical concerns regarding patient rights and hospital responsibilities.
Who's rights may be abridged?
Who Benefits?
Who could be hurt?
Cons
Pros
Decision
What could have been done differently?
Relevant Facts
People's health is at risk
Relationship with Patients at risk
Responsibility to ensure lowest risk treatment
Reputation of Company is at stake
Reputation of Hospitals are at risk
Reputation of Healthcare Workers / Doctors at risk
Other treatments may not be as powerful
Machines cost 1 million dollars
Machines massively overdosed 6 people, resulting in death for 3 of them
In 1987, the FDA recalled ALL machines. This essentially shut down the use of the Therac-25s
Assuming the point of view of a hospital PRIOR to the ban of these machines, we came to a conclusion that we would halt the use of Therac-25s temporarily in our hospital this would reduce the risk of further injuring at-risk patients and limit the defamation of our hospital and it's staff
Ideally, we would seek out a bug / software fix to not completely waste the cost of the machines and training to use them. If the company did not offer that, we would halt the use all together.
AECL could have offered bug fixes and software fixes. It came out that the cause of Therac-25s malfunctioning was a design issue, so they could have just spent more time and care in the development since these machines cost 1 million dollars.
The doctors of the patients who faced malfunction should have been more willing to admit it was a major overdose and trusted the patients rather than the machines. In some cases, these deaths could have been avoided.
More secure testing, development, coding, and overall design of the machines.
Medical Staff: care providers may not be comfortable administering the unsafe treatment and would have to proceed if it's what the patient chooses even with the risk of harm.
Patients: If the treatment is succesful, patients could potentially see an improvement in their condition
Hospitals: locations that provide this service could potentially see an increase in patients who are willing to use the treatment if it is benificial to their health.
Patients: If the software is faulty patients risk receiving an overdose of radiation and lasting health complications
Hospitals: If the treatment is harmful hospitals can lose their credibility and run the risk of being involved in lawsuits for knowingly providing a treatment that is potentially unsafe.
The possibility that patients will recieve life saving treatment if it works corrrectly
Being ethically questionable due to the nature of providing a service that could potentially cause harm.
Developing the treatment through use and potentially discovering more information about how to help patients with this condition.
Potential Lawsuits due to the inherent risk of providing the treatment