Jarrell Jackson

PHIL355E

3/25/2025

Which is worse, take medicine that is prescribed to you or do not take the medication prescribed to assist with changing the sickness? In reading the article by Bill Sourour, you may change your thinking about that response. Bill Sourour was instructed to develop a quiz allowing individuals to respond to questions asked and ultimately see if their responses pointed to a particular medicine, manufactured by the pharmaceutical company employing Sourour. The responses were different, however the quiz always pointed back to recommending the medication, regardless of answers. Originally developed as an educational tool, but the quiz steered respondents in one direction – to the medicine. As Sourour looked into this, he discovered the medication had serious side effects, that he was not aware of, including suicidal thoughts. Sourour discovered a young woman had died from suicide, after taking the medication. Sourour understood his work directly contributed to the death of at least one person, and caused harm to others.

In this Case Analysis, I will discuss the Ethics of Care as it shows Sourour’s actions, while morally wrong, prioritized the corporate pharmaceutical interest above the public’s well-being. Thinking of Sourour’s educational quiz, should a developers’ work be used against the public’s overall health. The respondents trusted the quiz to provide accurate medical guidance. Had Sourour questioned the intent of the corporation, he may have refused to write such a quiz thus not publishing it to the public. In this case, Armstrong’s concept of Professionalism, shows Sourour should have questioned the morality of the content he was asked to and ultimately produced, thus showing developers should prioritize trust and/or safety beyond employer demands.

The Ethics of Care provides a pathway to empathy and the responsibility to act in such a way that prioritizes other’s well-being. Although held in multiple industries, the Ethics of Care provides a Code of Professional Ethics as a blueprint to reinforce values and how professionals should conduct their work. Among these are the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) who provide outlines of ethical importance. As the values are reinforced, the principle – coming from the ACM – of “avoid harm” indicates a need to prioritize the public well-being as code is written. Members are also called upon by the IEEE code to uphold the safety of individuals and the public welfare.

As we apply these outlines to the development of Sourour’s quiz, a direct contradiction exists with these ethical standards. Without questioning what his employer had requested he do, not only did he blindly fulfill his employer’s request, he also neglected the impact on society as a whole and how this work would be consumed by vulnerable respondents. This is where the Ethics of Care come into play and suggest even developers must understand their effects on the real-world vs selfishly on their computer. Sourour neglected his duty of care and contributed to a company that prompted their bottom line and ignored proper medical advice. By blindly acting on the request from his employer, Sourour ignored all duties of care. Respondents trusted the medical advice the quiz provided. Even though both Sourour and the Respondents were blind to the medical risks of the medicine promoted within the quiz, it was ultimately Sourour’s responsibility to understand the intent of the quiz and the effects of the medicine it promoted.

While Sourour’s creation of the quiz was not an ethical concern, the medicine it promoted and the neglect to understand the medical claims was. This is where the Ethics of Care come into play even in the digital space. As a developer, there was an ethical responsibility to understand how the quiz would be used and thus it was his moral obligation to question his employer about the medical impacts of such medicine. When society’s well-being is in play, it is the developers responsibility to prioritize the safety of others over the requests of employers. As this was an inadvertent betrayal from Sourour, he did participate in the deception with his employer by default. By asking questions of the intent and understanding the medical claims, Sourour would have upheld his duty of care through these small actions and provided a sense of responsibility to the core values he should be protecting.

Another violation seen with Sourour’s failure to question is seen through the principle of integrity. Sourour’s blind trust and development of the quiz let down those who utilize digital means to understand medical information. Digital platforms are increasingly available to users who must be protected by developers. It is through this trust the public puts the responsibility in understanding those who are developing such quizzes and although not a doctor, Sourour had a responsibility to minimize the harm he placed on medical advice through his quiz. In order for societal trust to exist, developers must promote safety for individuals and their vulnerability.

It is through this example we see that development of code is not morally exclusive and must be done with a sense of ethics allowing for a Do-No-Harm to individuals seeking advice within the code. By utilizing the Ethics of care, developers have to use both their moral and technical skills when providing work to their employers, thinking of the public good above all else. Without questioning his employer, Sourour allowed a system to endanger others at his hand. The overall lesson is developers must ask questions and seek information where they believe risks would have a potential to hinder others. It is through these steps they can take steps thus ensuring the tools created by them will sustain the safety and well-being of the users they are pinpointing with their work.

Turning to Armstrong’s concept of professionalism where a special trust exists between the public and professionals, Sourour had a moral responsibility to do the right thing prior to releasing the quiz to the public. This moral responsibility is what called for Sourour to have integrity, be honest, and act with accountability for his work. With this special trust, any professional has the moral responsibility to act accordingly. This special trust demands for professionals and those interacting with public interest to consider what impact they will have upon the population and those who rely upon them to look beyond just following employer requests.

Sourour did not follow his professional responsibilities even though he did follow his technical responsibilities by delivering the quiz his employer asked him to provide. The problem with blindly doing so is where he failed to uphold his standards of conduct and treated the public with less than professional results. Regardless of the employer’s ask, Sourour failed with his responsibilities by ignoring his concept of professionalism and broke that special trust with society as a whole.

As Armstong’s concept shows Sourour made a large professional error, the risks could have been avoided if Sourour had merely asked questions of his employer to understand the medical consequences the medicine would have upon those who were vulnerable and relied solely upon the medical advice from the quiz. It is through this role the developer has placed himself in front of Ethics where he must utilize the public’s safety as his stop gap and allow for empathy, awareness and the public well-being to be at the front of his principles instead of allowing the technical nature of his work to blind him to the consequences.

Had Sourour responded with questions, it would have encompassed Armstrong’s emphasis on moral courage. One of Armstrong’s main points indicates the willingness to resist the unethical requests regardless of how it portrays on your work or even on your reputation in the industry. Sourour has a responsibility to challenge the integrity of the request from his employer. He has this responsibility due to the special trust given to him from the public and in return he is expected to uphold that trust by eliminating or reducing the risk of harm to users of his product.

Armstrong’s emphasis is on the principle of accountability. This principle asks professionals to acknowledge their mistakes, even those that could not be avoided, and ensure steps are taken to rectify those mistakes and thus reducing the impact to society. By doing this, harm to individuals can be reduced in the future as well. While Sourour did discuss his actions publicly and this did go towards his acceptance of accountability, by not acting in the moment, he has shown a clear need to develop instincts to protect the public at the point of request. It is hard for most individuals to question the authority their employer has over them, however it will be appreciated when the commitment to ongoing ethical concerns and public morality increases across the professionals developing on digital platforms utilized by society.

In conclusion, both Armstrong’s concept of professionalism and the Ethics of Care indicate Sourour’s actions lacked morals. Through the emphasis of corporate interests and well-being to the bottom line selling the mad medicine, the well-being of society as a whole was ignored and neglected, even though inadvertently. Sourour’s moral obligation was to the public and he had an invested special trust to uphold by questioning the simple use of the quiz and understanding how the medical claims were accurate or untrue. By not doing so Sourour reacted unethically and with disregard to the people he served through his technical abilities. His contributions were unclear because he neglected to be proactive in asking and in consulting his employer over the request. It is through this work, developers can align both their technical career with the professional ethical responsibilities and help enhance the public’s well-being.

The analysis shows there are ethical concerns that can exist through software use and development. It is up to the developer to utilize their discernment and understand the reasoning for the requests asked of them by their employer. That is not to say every request will come from an employer and be unethical, it is to say the developer should use their instincts to understand when and where to ask these questions. As the developer exercises their duty to ask questions, they will verify the information and thus incorporate their instincts and ethics into their work. As they embrace both the principle of Ethics of Care and the concept of professionalism, the digital environment will exist through professionals and keep the user’s well-being over corporate interests as a whole.