Bill Sourour’s article: “The code I’m still ashamed of”, covers Bill’s history and how he got into the coding scene, along with a project he completed and the effects it had on consumers and his own perception of the duty developers have in the digital age. Sourour began coding at a young age and worked up to a programming position in a Canadian interactive marketing company. As Canadian law restricts the advertisement of prescription drugs outright, companies have used certain tactics on their websites to advertise in roundabout ways to comply with the legislature. One tactic was a quiz targeted towards teenage girls that recommended different drugs based on their answers, a project given to Sourour to make. The client’s specifications were that the site be about general information to comply with regulations, but all results from the quiz questions led to the recommendation of the same drug, barring allergies. Sourour successfully completed the project and submitted it to the client, where it was put into use on their website. Not long after, it was brought to his attention that a girl committed suicide from the adverse effects the drug his quiz had recommended to her. Sourour later resigned, and gained a new understanding of the ethical responsibility developers and others have in the modern age. In this case analysis I will argue that Deontology shows us that the code was morally wrong because it disrespected the users by concealing its cheap marketing tricks and denied users the chance to make their own choices, and the Sourour should have noticed its unethicality and contested it because it would have been the right thing to do.

Key concepts taken from the given Codes of Ethics that help define the ethically correct way to act in this analysis are the obligation to avoid deceptive acts and to prioritize the health and safety of the public. The ethical codes for the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the Association for Computing Machinery all share two similar ethical codes. The code of upholding the priority of public health and safety can be defined as the responsibility organization workers have to ensure their actions and products do no harm towards the welfare, safety, and health of the public. This rule also denotes the responsibility to report breaches of the code to proper authorities and to undo the action to the best of one’s ability. The second ethical rule to avoid actions that  deceive the public can be defined as the responsibility for those under the code to not act in ways that omit facts or misrepresent information to the public. 

When adding the two previously defined ethical rules to the analysis of Sourour’s article, more detailed conclusions to the ethicality of his actions can be drawn. At the beginning of Sourour’s work in the project, he only knew that the company’s desired demographic for the ad and quiz were teenage girls. However, after requesting more information, it was discovered that the quiz was fake and essentially resulted in the same drug being recommended regardless of user input. Sourour admits to not feeling bothered or concerned about the quiz’s deception and proceeded to submit the project. It was only after he was informed of a suicide resulting from the quiz’s recommendation that he resigned and considered the ethicality of his work. In this circumstance, Sourour broke the ethical code/s to protect the public’s welfare and to not deceive the public. By submitting the project as is, Sourour compromised the health and welfare of the public by allowing a company to recklessly recommend a drug with adverse effects like suicidal thoughts and severe depression. The information Sourour requested unveiled the quiz to be a complete lie that tricked teenage girls into thinking the drug was recommended to them based on their quiz entries; even with this newfound information, Sourour proceeded to complete the project and submit it for public use. Not once during the production of the project did Sourour question the ethical nature of the quiz or report it to proper authorities, leaving him in clear violation to multiple ethical codes of conduct.

Insights gained from applying Deontology to the analysis of this case will help in identifying Sourour’s immorality and things he could have done to correct his actions. Deontological ethics place an importance on doing the right thing, even though more convenient avenues are available. Another important concept of Deontology is to act as though it were in accordance with universal law, exception to no one. In Sourour’s case, he chose the convenient option to not think about the ethical implications of his work and to not raise any concerns or questions. He also acted in ways that were not in accordance with universal law by creating a quiz that deceived its users with a false outcome. The right thing to do in this situation would have been flagging the project to a supervisor when the nature of the quiz was discovered. 

Another way to assess Sourour’s actions in this analysis is to apply the concept of professional confidentiality as a prima facie duty, as described in Mary Beth Armstrong’s passage: “Confidentiality: A Comparison across the Professions of Medicine, Engineering and Accounting”. A prima facie duty is an obligation that is inherently upheld or true until it becomes conflicted with duties stronger than or equal to it. Armstrong gives four primary justifications for professional confidentiality: “Individual autonomy over personal information, respect for relationships among human beings and for intimacy, the obligation created by a pledge of silence, and the utility to persons and society.”. The implications of professional confidentiality as a prima facie duty include the obligation intrinsically be maintained, and can only be overridden by certain conditions. Some of the conditions warranting the contravention of professional confidentiality listed by Armstrong are: the objective or duty must be realistic and likely to succeed, there are no other morally correct avenues besides circumventing the prima facie duty, and the objective infringe as little as possible and cause minimal effects.

Professional confidentiality can help explain Sourour’s actions in the analysis of this case. As Armstrong previously defined professional confidentiality as a prima facie duty, or as an inherently upheld obligation, it would have been morally correct for Sourour to uphold this obligation leading into the events of his article. As an employee and as a professional contracted by the pharmaceutical company to make a product, Sourour had responsibilities to keep his contractor’s information private, to uphold his professional confidentiality, and to respect the relationship between him and the company. He would have continued to be morally correct by maintaining his professional duties and completing the project, had it not been for the new information revealing the unethical nature of the quiz and its societal dangers. In comparison to the prima facie duty of professional confidentiality, the new knowledge of the predatory and deceptive nature of the quiz warranted infringing actions, as the betterment and health of the public outweighed the importance of professional confidentiality to the company. 

The use of Deontological virtues further explains the ethical nature of Sourour’s actions in this analysis. Deontology highlights the importance of respecting others and the morality of actions lying within their intentions. Considering the betterment and health of society taking precedence over Armstrong’s system of a prima facie confidentiality, Sourour’s moral duty of respect and obligation lies with the public and preventing the deceit and possible harm from the quiz. However, Sourour chose to keep his professional confidentiality and did not speak out against the client’s request, disrespecting the public by compromising their health and safety and disguising an advertisement as a quiz. Deontologically, programming the quiz was morally wrong since Sourour understood the website was not poised as an advertisement but as an informational page and still went ahead with making a false quiz that led to only one drug being recommended. This moral injustice to society would have taken priority over the interests of the pharmaceutical company and prompted Sourour to make the right decision and contact individuals within the company to review the ethicality of the project.

In conclusion, Sourour was morally wrong for programming the pharmaceutical quiz because it deceived its uses by hiding its advertising nature and only recommending one kind of drug. By knowing the predatory nature of the quiz and the company website, Sourour violated several critical codes of ethics: prioritizing the wellness and safety of the public and never deceiving the public, by submitting the project without attempting to contact anyone about the project’s ethicality. During Sourour’s development on the project, new information about the deceitful nature of the quiz should have changed his moral obligation from maintaining professional confidentiality to the duty of protecting the interests of the public and society. Unfortunately, Sourour betrayed his duty to the public and took the convenient action of keeping his head down and did what he was tasked to do. One could argue that raising concerns over the ethicality of the pharmaceutical company’s advertising tactic is not a sufficient enough reason to infringe on the confidential relationship and respect to the company as a contracted professional. And while there is an obligation as a professional to maintain confidentiality with respect to the company, once it becomes apparent that the professional’s actions can adversely affect the health and safety of the public, duty changes in favor to the public and its protection becomes paramount. Sourour should have realized this priority change and upheld his Deontological responsibility to the public by stopping work on the project and contacting the proper authorities to arbitrate.