C. Nestle - people in African countries don’t have the same purchasing power as Europe.

Nestle
did something considered ethical in Europe but not in Africa.

 Nestle put business interests above the common good. It is already against the common
good for newborn children in Africa and the USA because breast milk is better for
newborns as compared to powdered milk.
 European women are educated enough to know that breast milk is better. Whereas in
Africa, women who are uneducated and poor imagine that powder milk is better than
breast milk as it comes from industries, and is more modern. In hospitals, if mothers
don’t have breast milk, then powdered milk is given.
 Gives rise to malnourished or underfed infants, which doesn’t allow the bones or body to
grow. Causes bad health and bad growth - growth is lower and slower. Children who
don’t have enough breast milk are also make them vulnerable to diseases as they don’t
have enough protection from bacteria and viruses, as compared to those who consume
breast milk.
 Also, powdered milk had to be prepared with distilled water and not tap water. This was a
weakness in Africa as the people didn’t have access to distilled water, and prepared the
milk with tap water which caused the children to choke and die (infant mortality).
 Africa boycotted Nestle.
 Example 5 and 6
 Nestle waited 7 years before they changed their practices; a boycott was deserved.
 Breast milk remains better for newborns than powdered milk. Underfed newborn babies
mean that the growth will be impeded and stunted due to these circumstances.
 What was ethical in USA and Europe is not ethical in Africa. It was already quite
unethical in USA because using both powdered milk and breast milk causes the breast
milk to whither away; but the situation was even worse in Africa.

Question - Moral relativism, what is allowed in one country or at one time is not allowed in
another country/time.

**Ethics on one hand, and the law and regulations on the other hand.

 Pictures - 1913 - man wearing a bra and veil and shorts in Iran - fined for being indecent

 Helen Hulick - wearing trousers in USA - everyone in courtroom thought it was being
indecent for women - gender question. Had to wear skirts and not trousers but didn’t feel
comfortable doing that so they boycotted and wore trousers and had to be kicked out of
classrooms. For the school to protect their reputation, they allowed girls to wear trousers.
‘Teacher who served a 5-day prison sentence in 1938 after being held in contempt of court for
wearing pants to a burglary trial at which she was to testify as a witness.’

 What is the law of the school vs. what is ethical?

  Coming nude is against ethics, need to wear some clothes at least.

For example, what is forbidden in Iran is allowed in Dubai.

Saudi Arabia is also changing and permitting more things.

 Man fined for wearing shorts at the beach. No idea what is decent or indecent, and
whether it was against ethics or the law.

Question 1 - What are the ethical issues? List them.

Indicate what is extremely serious (infant mortality, malnourished infants)
Economical factors - not enough money to buy powdered milk
Did not have the level of education to understand that breast milk is better; felt that powdered
milk is modern and therefore better (we would understand that fresh beans are better than canned
beans because we are educated, but it's very hard to make this differentiation for uneducated
people).
Ethical issues: advertising for powdered milk against breast milk. The breast milk of African
women had withered when they tried to use powdered milk, thinking it was better.
Did not give all the truth - should have kept in mind that people are uneducated. Tell them what
has to be told - that breast milk will whither if powdered milk is continued.

Question 2 - What did Nestle do that was wrong? What could they have done before, and what
did they do that was wrong?
Before - if they asked doctors and nurses in hospitals about the problems, it would have been
better for them. They did not do basic field study)
It took 7 years before they stopped doing bad advertisements. In the end, it cost them money. It
was terrible to wait, and put profits above lives of babies.

Question 3 - If you were the head of Nestle at that time (around 2010 - 12 years ago), what
would you have done to restore the image and reputation of the company, after they lost money?
 Field study, asking doctors and nurses > before
 What can you do, now that the harm has been done?

D. Business Ethics with Drug Manufacturers

 A company like Nestle sells food and makes business and money - this affects the
common good, certainly.
 With drug manufacturers, the common good is a major issue.
 Withdrew medication when a death had been confirmed.
 Detrimental substances usually depend on the quantity of it to determine how hazardous
it would be.
 Drug manufacturers pay doctors to prescribe more quantities of medication and for longer
durations - to increase revenue and profits.
 This shows false altruism - pretend that they do this for our health, but in reality just want
to make more money.
List the Unethical issues
 Did not specify that the drug/painkiller is dangerous on the medication box/paper and
make it readable and legible, and not in small characters.
 Shouldn’t have put it on the market in the first place.
 Human health was not considered - categorical imperatives of Kant (truth and human life
- put revenue above human life and health implications).
 Should have tested the drug extensively, carefully, and for a long time, before putting it
out on the market.
 Paid doctors to cheat people; is against legal codes and ethics. Have indirect ways of
paying doctors by offering things, facilities, services, etc., not just money through bank
accounts as it reflects in the statement and there is no way of justifying it.
 Not just health, but also the importance of human lives.
 Advertised for people to take the drugs before they got ill.
 Lost many consumers, and trust was destroyed.
 Payments of lawsuits were $20 billion - a large amount of harm had been caused; number
of people harmed was very big.
 Altruism vs. egoism is very important in the medical field - false altruism, but the real
purpose is to make money.

Suppose you’re the head of the company and you have to restore your image; what do you
do?
1. Public apology
2. Free consultations and checkups
3. Stop selling the product immediately
4. Give more money to families than what the judges had decided upon
5. Cover medical expenses for affected people who suffered
6. Stop paying doctors to prescribe the drug
7. In societies, the Ministry of Health should punish doctors, and issue a law. The head
should support the law of being against paying doctors, against advertising. Strengthen
the law by showing support. The company should defend the idea that there should be
stronger laws.
8. Better test drugs manufactured
9. Enforce stronger controls that follow the laws
10. If you’re the head of J&J - defend the stronger controls - not only apologize but say that
ads will be controlled, etc

E. Poisoning by drugs
 In the USA, the number 1 cause of death is guns (over 10,000 people - old figure).
 People suffer from pain in knees, ankles, bones (arthritis)

F. Price of products and services

 Fake ads saying you can travel from A to B for X amount of money - which is fake
because you end up paying a lot more.

Ethical issues here:

 1. The truth about prices - were not clear about hidden costs, insurance, tax, etc. This is
cheating on the actual price that ends up being paid.

What must the head do to restore the image?

1. Not only go on TV and say that we did something wrong and will do better, but support
higher controls of ads and laws pertaining to the same.