Case Analysis #4

  Today we will be analyzing the article “The code I’m still ashamed of” written by author Bill sourour. This article was published on November 16, 2016, on the Free Code Camp website. The article opens with a statement telling the reader that as a coder you will encounter jobs that require you to write a code that may be malicious. The author then explains to the reader that it had happened to him back in the year 2000 when he landed a job in Toronto, Canada. Sourour then explains that in Canada they have strict laws around pharmaceutical companies advertising prescription drugs. So instead the Pharmaceutical companies would intentionally create general informational websites about certain symptoms and if the user’s symptoms were similar they would be able to show more details about their prescription drug. His team was contracted and began to work on the website and was almost finished when a question arose. What were the requirements for the quiz? The management team contacted their client and received the requirements. With the final key, they finished both the website and the quiz. Once finished the website was tested by a team member and she had realized that the quiz was rigged to always display the client’s drug as the answer. This was questioned by the team but truly shrugged off because it was the assignment. Later that day sourour received news that the client’s drug had a bad side effect of suicidal thoughts and a user had committed suicide. After the incident, he resigned and spent some of his time writing articles informing fellow coders on tips on how to continue their careers. The author also states that since the incident he considers the possible negative effects of all his work. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that Kantianism/deontology shows us that the code was morally problematic because it did harm and that Sourour should have done something different because he had the moral responsibility to do so and could have prevented some of the outcomes.

In this part of the analysis, I will introduce the “IEEE Code of Ethics” written by the IEEE and its board of directors. The code of ethics is a set of guidelines put in place in order to assist its members in understanding what decisions are right or wrong within a profession or business. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is one of many associations which create these standards in order to provide guidance to those specific careers and individuals. These standards are created by professionals in the fields and are carefully reviewed in order to prevent any misinterpretation. 

The IEEE has 10 guidelines that they require their members to follow. In this analysis, we focus on number one. It states that “ to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, to protect the privacy of others, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;” When taking this into account when looking at the case at hand we see that the actions of sourour had violated the guideline. It was his duty to ensure that his code did not harm the safety of the public but his actions resulted in the deaths of people. This code also states that professionals must do their best to create ethical designs. When looking at sourour quizzes it deceived the public into thinking that only one drug could help them. From the moment sourour received the quiz requirements he should have questioned the ethical design of the code. Looking at this through the eyes of a Kantian believer we can see that sourour was morally wrong for his decision. This is because a Kantian believes that their actions should be able to be willed as a universal law. If we look at the actions of sourour he was only acting in the best interest of himself because he believed that it was the job and never thought about the lives that his code could affect. If everyone acted in this manner then the outcome would be selfish acts in order to complete one’s agenda. 

We can also look at number 4 in the code of ethics which states that “to avoid unlawful conduct in professional activities and to reject bribery in all its forms;” In this case, we can see that Canada had strict laws around advertising prescription drugs. While the actions of this company were not illegal their methods were questionable. When sourour received the requirements of the quiz it stated that all answers should lead to the same prescription drug. A co-worker also took the test and realized that it was rigid to always give the same answer. At that moment they should have questioned the validity of the website they had coded. Viewing this situation again as a Kantian, was morally wrong because this code was treating the users as a means to an end instead of treating them as individuals. The fact that the code never gave the users real results makes this situation morally wrong in the eyes of Kantian. 

In this next part of the analysis, I will introduce the article “Confidentiality: A Comparison Across the Professions of Medicine, Engineering, and Accounting.”

Written by author Merry Beth Armstrong. This article was written in order to compare the professions of Medicine, Engineers, and Accounts. This comparison was based on the confidentiality which each profession held. It also explained how confidentiality was further changed as it faced challenges in each field. This article explained that engineers were originally encouraged to prioritize their employers. While later this concept was viewed as morally wrong, it later changed to place public safety first. In the next few paragraphs, I will analyze these concepts with respect to the main article. 

One of the concepts this article first presents to the reader is the importance of prioritizing and protecting its employer. Looking at the sourour case he did everything that the employer required of him. Even when he received the questionable quiz requirements he still proceeded to code the website. He had chalked the whole situation up to a part of the job. He also never reported his employer instead he simply resigned after hearing the news about the negative side effects. From the Kantian perspective, both the concept and sourour actions are flawed. This is because they both place the focus on the few instead of looking at society as a whole. This lack of respect for individuals is morally wrong. This is because the business should have good intentions for its users and this responsibility lands on both the employers and the employees. Both the client and sourour viewed this commission as a means to an end instead of considering the drastic effect that this could have on society. But this concept was later revised and it was believed that an engineer should place the well-being and safety of the public before his employer or clients which leads us into the next section. 

Another one of the main concepts of this paper was the importance of engineers speaking up when issues were ignored that could potentially harm the public. It stated that an engineer has the duty to first speak with his superior about the issue. If the superior were to ignore the issue then it would be okay to overstep and speak to management about the issue. If we take this into consideration when looking at the Sourour case, an issue we can see is that he never notified his team or confronted the management team about the damages the website could potentially have. In the main article, it states that sourour only resigned from the team. This was morally wrong of him because when he was at the dinner after receiving the news about the victim he could have spoken to the client and presented the issues. Although the project was confidential according to the article, this was a proper situation for him to break confidentiality. Viewing this situation from a Kantian perspective we can perceive this as morally wrong because for a Kantian believer it is most important to respect individuals. The fact that sourour never spoke up about the issue and simply only resigned shows the lack of respect for the users who had trusted the site to help them find help. 

In conclusion, I do believe that soursour was morally wrong for his actions and that he could have done more to either prevent the incident or prevent further damage to the public. This is because he was in a professional position to speak up about the issue but he lacked the appropriate actions to do so. Based on the IEEE guideline or and other ethical codes his actions did not present the good professionalism of an ethical worker. A potential rebuttal to my argument could be that sourour was just doing his job. Yes but his actions after receiving the news about the dangers do not show any remorse or moral intuition. He also had many moments where he could have taken initiative and prevented further damage. I also believe that sourour could have been more informed about the company he was creating the site for especially because of Canada’s strict prescription laws. They must have been put in place for a specific reason and a case like this is clearly why they were established.