Often when you see those drug commercials on TV that trail on at the end with all the possible side effects, obviously leading on to disclose that they are rare side effects, and not common, saying that the medicine works better to treat the single symptom. You must wonder how often the negative symptoms of the drug outweigh the positives that it cures or suppresses. Bill Sourour specializes in writing code and wrote up a piece of code for a client to advertise a drug that had major side effects symptoms like depression and suicidal thoughts. The code was a quiz for a website that was meant to have young girls take the client’s drug only, unless they were allergic or were already taking it. The quiz was deceptive and highly dangerous, not to mention morally wrong. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that utilitarianism shows us that the code was morally problematic because of the deception and harm that the code could cause, and that Sourour should have actively become a whistleblower despite the expected confidentiality in his profession because it could have saved lives.

            Many professions contain a code of ethics that the employee is expected to follow, most requiring and containing quite just codes. A specific code of ethics under the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, or IEEE for short, contains a short, but easily comprehensive set of codes that may be considered broad, but a just set of ideals, nonetheless. One of the most glaringly simple but obvious code is to be honest, superficially with claims regarding data. Another concept that we can gather from this code of ethics is to avoid injuring others by false or malicious action. Depending on the situation, these codes go hand in hand. Unsurprisingly, the code that Sourour violates both basic codes of ethics.

            Sourour Is asked to produce a piece of code for a website to advertise a drug that is meant to be for young girls. This piece of code that Sourour produces, and was asked to produce, is a simple quiz online. This quiz as you go through it will recommend the single drug unless the person taking the quiz is allergic to it, or already taking the client’s drug that was wanting to be advertised in the first place. No matter what the quiz taker answers, possibly showing no symptoms that the drug is meant to reduce, will suggest that the drug is taken.  This breaks the first code of ethics I introduced, honesty. The client knew that the drug is not a cure-all, a panacea, yet still requested that the quiz no matter the response, recommend his drug to be taken, obviously showing the dishonesty. The code after it is produced anyways, breaks another rule not too long later. Souour learns that a girl who was taking the client’s drug resorted to suicide. The client’s drug has many nasty symptoms such as depression and suicidal thoughts. The quiz produced is not only dishonest, but also potentially harmful because those who take the quiz and by association take the drug recommended, may commit suicide from the harmful and injurious side effects. It is quite easy to see that the aftermath of even one person taking the drug as an expensively large net negative, something a utilitarian would have foul reactions to.

            Utilitarianism is the concept of as long as the action has a net good, then the action taken is good, no matter how much bad occurs, and when the action is a net bad, then the action is bad, no matter how much good occurs. This moral theory in the workplace is a fine one to keep due to its non-emotional or relationship-oriented ethical base. Sourour gained a happy client and a steak dinner from his quiz, which also resulting from the drug that a quiz advertises, dishonestly or not, someone has committed suicide. Already, the balance obviously leans to a net negative, and therefore is morally wrong through the eyes of utilitarianism, but sadly it doesn’t stop there as just being an advertisement. The quiz itself, is dishonest, possibly proving to get more young and oblivious girls to go on the drug and have depression and suicidal thoughts as the repercussion of trying to improve their life. This makes the quiz even more morally wrong because of how much more this quiz could harm because of its lies. The deed was done, however, Sourour should not have stopped at just regretting what he had created.

            Mary Beth Armstrong wrote an article in a scientific professional ethics journal on the ethics of confidentiality in a few professions, one being in medicine. This section of her paper in particular brings up a case in which a phycologist learned that a man was obsessed with harming and killing a certain student. He had broken the main idea of confidentiality in the medical profession; however, it was done in an attempt to save a life. The phycologist was brought to court over the ordeal and the court ruled in his favor, saying that it was the phycologist’s duty to protect a life in the event that the phycologist can on longer help his patient. This idea of breaking the professional confidentiality that is expected of employees from employers, and from professionals like the phycologist and their patient.

            With this morally wrong quiz that Sourour had created, he had felt an obvious regret that he still feels to this day, but Sourour, like the phycologist, had an opportunity to protect a life. The only difference is that the phycologist acted on it, and Sourour did not, even after learning that the drug can and will harm people. He may have broken confidentiality between him and his client to save his own sister, but young girls that find this website would be lured in by the quiz, only have the single answer of taking the drug and no know about the side effects and possibly commit suicide by the overwhelming depression and suicidal thoughts. Although the phycologists whistleblower actions may have been much smaller to just notify the police that what Sourour must do, but Sourour has a moral obligation to protect the lives of those he knows are being tricked by the code he was forced to write, this dishonest and harmful quiz. Sourour should have become a fully-fledged whistleblower after his resignation, as this would have actually had a net good, whether it worked or not. Rather than standing by in the sidelines watching those who become entrapped and lied to, he could be actively trying to help those who are ensnared by the deceitful quiz, and possibly, the harmful drug, much like his sister was.

            Whether or not he actually saves anyone, his actions of becoming a whistleblower and having a negative of making his previous client angry and possibly sue, would be outweighed by the net good of possibly saving a life, even one. In the eyes of a utilitarian, this is all that matters, any bad that is outweighed by a good to become a net good is an action one should always take. Just warning his sister and nobody else also poses to be a net negative action, as not warning others would have them still be trapped by the quiz and become suicidal and possibly commit suicide would be still a net negative. For utilitarianism, the only action, and what Sourour should have done differently, is to warn those and protect those from a harmful drug and a deceitful quiz.

            Sourour’s quiz is deceitful and incredibly harmful, not to mention incredibly wrong under the moral eyes of utilitarianism. A human life ending in suffering is one of the greatest moral evils that one can commit, even if it was not direct, as the quiz was encouraging the use of this drug. Sourour should have done more than just warning his sister to get off the drug and should have broken the expected code of confidentiality between Sourour and his client to potentially save the lives of many girls. Though, I do understand that many of these are just speculations of the quiz being responsible for deaths, and of course, the quiz will never be directly responsible for deaths, as the drug is what is causing the young girls to commit suicide. However, whether indirectly or not, a death is still a death, and a quiz that purposefully encourages the use of only this one drug that can cause this much harm to a human is morally wrong in more ways than just utilitarianism. Sourour was just being selfish to only take the simple deed of saving just his sister and effectively letting others perish.