Failure Report

1. Introduction

This memo is a failure report on the Ford Pinto design flaw. Ford accelerated designs on the Ford Pinto to achieve “a large market share” which resulted in a faulty design of the fuel system (Leggett, 1999). The easily ruptured fuel system would cause explosions in rear-end collisions; although this was a known fact by Ford engineers, financial benefits influenced “top Ford officials” to continue with production (Hoffman, 1982). Due to unethical decisions made by Ford leaders, the Pinto design lacked many safety features as the cost of paying for fatalities were less than implementing the new design (Baura & Ebrary, 2006) The upcoming sections will interpret the decisions that caused the failure, reasons for the failure and future lessons to be learned.

2. Description

In May, 1968 Lee Iacocca, the Ford Motor Company vice-president introduced the design of the Ford Pinto, a subcompact car which was largely popular, but the flawed in design. Prior to the distribution of this design, a flaw in the fuel tank was noticed as subsequent cases of fuel tank explosions were brought into question (Leggett, 1999). Figure1 below provides the image of a crash test done with a Chevrolet Impala rear-ending the Ford Pinto which led to an immediate combustion of the gas tank (Gibson, 2011). In order to enhance the trunk space, the fuel tank was placed behind the rear axle with only “nine inches of separation”. This danger was further emphasized due to the position of bolts near the gas tank and the “fuel filler pipe design” which provided an increased possibility of the disconnection of the tank in the event of an accident, causing fuel tank explosions (Leggett, 1999). In 1978, two major law suits were filed against. The first one resulted in $6.6 million to be awarded to a Pinto burn victim while the second one involved three teenage girls that died after being rear-ended by a van in relatively low speed collision as proposed by a witness. This was not only a burden to Ford’s financial costs, but also a testimony on their indifference when dealing with consumer safety (Baura & Ebrary, 2006). On The Ford Motor Company was charged with many cases of homicide subsequent to this due to Ford executives’ decision which allowed an unsafe car be sold to consumers (Evan & Manison, 2002).

Figure1: Pinto Fuel System Explosion. A 1971 Chevrolet Impala rear-ending a 1972 Ford Pinto in a crash test. (Gibson, 2011)

3. Reasons for the Failure

In hindsight, we notice that the main flaw was found in the initial design of the Ford Pinto and the dangerous placement of the fuel tank in close proximity to the rear axel (Evan & Manison, 2002), but even though a new design was proposed, the officials refused to implement as the cost for implementation of Standard 301 fuel tanks would have been $137 million as opposed to $49.5 million paid to victims of collision fatalities. The fuel tank upgrades following regulations of the Standard 301, would have cost $11 per car and according and to the “risk/benefit analysis” in this situation, the Ford executives decided that the paying for the 180 burn fatalities was more cost efficient than implementing the new design. As a result the new design was not implemented until 8 years prior to the law suits (Baura & Ebrary, 2006).

4. Lessons to be Learned

Through the flaws of the Ford Pinto design, stricter safety regulations were further implemented in future designs. Also the “risk/benefit analysis” should not be used for safety decisions as it does not account for all costs of accidents due to many unclaimed lawsuits as well as the time and money spent on arguing lawsuits. Furthermore, engineering ethics were brought into perspective as even though safety costs may seem to be more proficient than benefits received, financial benefit decisions should not cloud our moral judgments.

5. References

Baura, G. D., & Ebrary, I. (2006). Engineering ethics: An industrial perspective. Boston: Academic Press.

Evan, W. M., & Manison, M. (2002). Technological catastrophes: their causes and prevention. Technology in Society, 24, 207-224.          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X02000052

Gibson, John. (2011). Legendary Crash Test Video: 71 Impala vs 72 Pinto – Full Rear        Impact. Chevy Hardcore. Retrieved from            http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/legendary-crash-test-video-71-impala-         vs-72-pinto-full-rear-impact/

Hoffman, W. Michael. (1982). Corporate Obligations and Responsibilities: Everything Old             Is New Again. Case Study The Ford Pinto, 222-229. http://businessethics.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2012/01/HoffmanPinto.pdf

Leggett, Christopher. (1999). The Ford Pinto Case: The Valuation of Life as It Applies to   the Negligence-Efficiency Argument. Retrieved from       http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-       pinto.html

Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Should Patients Be Offered Prescriptions?

Those affected by ADHD (Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), are easily distracted from the task at hand. This disorder has been questioned for legitimacy for several years due to Leon Eisenberg’s claimed that “ADHD is a prime example of a fabricated disease” (qtd in Blech). Although many medical specialist agree that ADHD is indeed a widespread disorder, one would question the necessity of prescribed medication for such a mild abnormality. The International Consensus Statement on ADHD encourages patients to seek treatment to control the symptoms (Barkley et al.) and Paul Wender believes that “stimulant drugs [are] the most effective treatment for ADHD” (Wender 34). In contrast, several critics would oppose medication due to the various health risks as demonstrated through studies from Columbia University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the negative side-effects of prescribed medication (Carrizales 4). The previously proposed arguments for and against offering prescribed medication to patients center around negative health effects; they have neglected to consider the result of possession of drugs. Prescribed medication should be limited or discredited entirely when dealing with children as the negative consequences to their future outweigh the positive. In order to properly assess the credibility of drug distribution, we must consider emotional and moral drawbacks as well as the effects on cognitive ability.

Considering the effects of increasing amounts of drugs being available to the public is essential in determining the viability of loosely prescribing medication. The medicine provided to ADHD patients are generally stimulants that raise dopamine levels to allow the patient to focus (Robinson et al.). Although these stimulants can be used to benefit ADHD victims, the medication is also infamous for it’s promise of temporary euphoria when abused by users. Young children with possession have the opportunity to abuse or even distribute such substances illicitly. “Many health professionals believe that ADHD is being over-diagnosed” (Carrizales 1) due to the vague criteria for diagnosis based upon “a person’s pattern of behavior” (1). The International Consensus Statement on ADHD does acknowledge that environmental factors play a part in ADHD, but also claim that it does not arise “solely or primarily the result of these environmental factors”(Barkley et al.). In an attempt to argue for the legitimacy for medication, the statement informs us of the studies on the benefits of such anaesthetic drugs, but also makes reference to the necessity of “educational, family, and other social accommodations” (Barkley et al. ). Although there are obvious benefits of the medication, the statement neglects to access the negative health effects. Studies have shown that “some of the more troublesome symptoms gradually diminish and finally disappear at the time of puberty” (Wender 57). One would question the importance and necessity of medication when there are alternatives that are more beneficial health wise, especially when it comes down to a child’s well being. Because children can be feeble and naive, they do not understand the full consequences of their actions; surely children that are introduced to drugs at a young are more likely to be the ones that abuse them later on in the future as they have the opportunity to.

In addition to the emotional effects of stimulants on children, we must also consider the morality of offering a child prescribed medication that can potentially harm them. Several health issues may arise from medication such as “heart-related problems” and “psychiatric problems” along with various side effects that may cause mood swings that involve “irritability, depression, agitation, or other emotional side effects” which lead to the question: is it right to evoke such distress to a child? A child taking medication is probably not doing it because he wants to, but rather because he is forced to by their parents or guardians, supposedly for his/her own well being. Examining this situation more closely, we can observe a child, unknowing of consequences, being forced to take medication that is potentially life threatening that would anesthetize them in an attempt to cure them of their abnormality. The child has no opinion over the decision of accepting medication as the judgement is almost entirely based on the views of the caretakers. Certainly this violates one of the fundamental freedoms on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states everyone should have the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2b). Being under the influence of prescribed medication, childrens’ thoughts are inadvertently limited, impeding their ability to be individuals. Children under the influence of medication are seen to be more “concentrat[ed] and focus[ed]”, demonstrating, “reducing hyperactive and impulsive behaviors” (Robinson et al.), but are they truly themselves? Children under the influence of stimulants are restrained in their ability to show genuine emotions. In an attempt to maximize their mental abilities, we are paradoxically limiting them. How can this be fundamentally just?

Besides considering the morality of prescribing medication to children, we must also consider the effects of medication on their cognitive ability. The ability of ADHD patients to develop general thought processes is not inhibited although some patients do face learning disadvantages. Prescribed medication benefit attentiveness and hyperactivity, but does not address the uneven learning development problem that affect some ADHD children. A recent study on the educational and behavioural effects of stimulants on children with ADHD has shown that Ritalin, a commonly prescribed stimulant for ADHD patients, cause “short-term deteriorations in academic outcomes among both boys and girls”, contradicting the fallacy of benefits to cognitive abilities (Currie et al. 25). Also, several intelligence tests have shown that ADHD does not affect intelligence (Wender 18), but taking prescribed medication causes cognitive deterioration as demonstrated by Currie’s study; certainly medication is not viable for the developing minds of children. The risks of influencing brain development is significant as brain damage to a child would greatly influence their future. We must emphasize the fact that those affected by ADHD are initially not lacking in mental ability and only some are affected by learning disorders, but the effects of medication can handicap them into a far worse situation.

Because the symptoms of ADHD are so vague, improper diagnosis is a possible outcome which is a major problem due to the powerful medication used to treat this disorder. Improper diagnosis could lead to improper prescription of medication that is potentially dangerous to a person’s health. Although many studies show the obvious benefits of ADHD medication, the drawbacks are clearly significant. Children affected by ADHD are still naive, living under the influence of their caretakers and unable to make their own decisions. Offering children medication is as rational as offering them cocaine in that they stimulate dopamine levels in the brain  and have an overwhelming amount of negative effects on mental and physical health (Robinson et al.). Considering the results of several studies on the impacts on medication on health along with the moral, emotional, and mental effects caused by prescribed medication we can conclude that prescription medication to children is unviable and should be discontinued. The prescription of stimulants for ADHD children is still evident today. Through the insight provided by this paper, critics can reconsider the merits of medication and search for an alternative that is less detrimental to health. [1219 words]

Aging population

Aging populations have been an upcoming trend in the modern era due to the increasing business of people’s everyday life. The Canadian government’s attempt to solve the problem is to bring in qualified immigrants to further develop the workforce, but ultimately this would only promote a temporary resolve to this developing problem. In order to access a probable solution to this problem, we must first realize the flaws of education and evolution of societal practices that cause the population to abstain from reproducing until a later age. The promise of additional years education offering a better job is a key factor in delaying family development. Immigrants that are allowed into Canada are limited to investors, educated personnel, or ___________; not only does this create additional competition for locals in higher end jobs, this also does not fill the niche for lower wage jobs. Rather than qualifying immigrants by investing ability, the government should also access age, mental capacity, and _________.

Beneficial Innovation

The child held up the glimmering, innovative apple device, pressing on the screen displaying radiant flashes of pictures and lights. As the bus hummed to a temporary stop, I notice a male youth sitting in the four seat arrangement in front of me with a group of friends, casually browsing and texting social media applications on their smart phones. Occasionally I would overhear an exchange of a few words, but strangely enough, their eyes would remain focused on the vivid illustrations projected by the mobile devices. I guess they have their priorities straight. I find such behaviour shocking. Why would one decide to text and commute with others long distance when there are people that you could interact with around you?

We live in a world where there exists a constant development of new innovations that are designed to improve modern lifestyles and ease connections between people. “[t]he most forward thinking phone in the world” (qtd. in Gallo), was the slogan for the apple iPhone which captivates so many, becoming one of the most popular modern cellular devices in the world. This technology has many integrated functions like allow access to Facebook, Twitter, and numerous other social media applications which “helps you connect and share with the people in your life” (Facebook). All this innovation is supposedly benefits our social interactions and ability to share. Although this may be true, there is a paradoxical side effect that this ideal ultimately becomes a burden to social interactions.

        During this technological era, people are constantly sharing our experiences online daily through various pictures on Facebook, tweets on Twitter or other idea sharing programs; we strive for interesting aspects in our daily lives to project the significance of ourselves as others embrace or reject our opinions. Slowly we build a dependence. As people get approval from various posts from the general public, they gain status in their own minds which results in an addiction towards building a perfect image of themselves that everyone will approve of.

        “Texting, email, posting” allows us to “present the self as we want to be” (Turkle) and cut, paste, and edit the things we do and say.  There is no restraint on response time as society accepts edited responses due to the assumption of a busy life as opposed to in real time where we have little to no time to articulate a fluent and ideal response or act without flaws. Eventually, this leads to the deterioration of communication skills which in turn, decreases the demand for building intimate relationships and promotes the building of a greater web of virtual relationships.

        Social media provides an opportunity for people to escape solitude through providing a means of communication through the internet that is accessible virtually anywhere, but rather than create relationships, social media has merely caused people to become more isolated. The image we build of ourselves may be ideal, but without flaws, we aren’t actually demonstrating our true selves. Our expectations of ourselves and each other are growing exponentially due to the necessity of building of an ego that other people will perceive as something that is admirable. The public has become accustomed to a life controlled by great expectations. As we communicate behind a screen, we are alone, attempting to make connections, but because we seem to be so busy with our lives, we are no longer creating experiences with others, rather for others.

        Our society has adopted norms in which people are naturally pressured to abide by, as opposing them would result in exile. Many people speak of individualism, encouraging others to be themselves and accept each other’s differences, but due to the greater influence of news, social media, and advertisements people are allowed to individualize only to a certain extent. How can we be unique if every passerby is judging and objecting certain opinions that go against the norm? The fear of isolation drives us towards acting as a mindless zombie that abides by the laws of social order. When there is a fat lady walking across the street, we are influenced by social prejudices to depict this type of person as fat, therefore she is lazy. When a homeless man spotted on the streets of Downtown eastside, society deems him to be worthless drug addict because he is homeless and begging. What we fear is becoming one who is looked down upon by society, allowing societal pressure to influence our daily actions. In a world where everyone is always judging, individuality is only an ideal concept. Although we are allowed the freedom to act as we please, our roots are ultimately from the same society as we are taught every single day of our lives since childhood of what is acceptable behaviour. We may have the freedom to choose our actions and who we associate with, but being with a certain group influences us to adopt the group ideology. Our personality is based upon the influences of those around us. We are figures placed onto a field full of dirt paths that may lead to great things, but we do not have the option of exploring the grass.

Works Cited

"Facebook Has a New Homepage, But Is Still Not a Social Networking Site." L'Atelier: Disruptive Innovation. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

Gallo, Carmine. "How Apple Guarantees You'll Remember Its Twitter-Friendly Message."Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

Turkle, Sherry. "Sherry Turkle Quotes." Sherry Turkle Quotes (Author of Alone Together). Goodreads, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.