Banned in The U.S.A. Case Outline Argument

Description

  • Outline the

    argument

    that you will be making in your paper.
  • Please take a look at the example. Note that this builds off of the sample case summary provided in the previous assignment.

please base on the BANNED IN THE U.S.A( the First document ) and the summary for banned products( the third one ) to get the argument outline.

here is the sample for helping understanding.

don’t plagiarize !

let me know if you have any questions.

thanks for help!

BANNED IN THE U.S.A.
When it comes to the safety of young children, fire is a parent’s nightmare. Little wonder that when
fire-retardant children’s pajamas hit the market in the mid-1970s, they proved an overnight success.
Within a few short years more than 200 million pairs were sold, and the sales of millions more were all
but guaranteed. For their manufacturers, the future could not have been brighter. Then, like a bolt from
the blue, came word that the pajamas were killers.
In June 1977, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the sale of these pajamas
and ordered the recall of millions of pairs. The pajamas contained the flame-retardant chemical Tris
(2,3-dibromoprophyl), which had been found to cause kidney cancer in children.
Whereas just months earlier the 100 medium- and small-garment manufacturers of the Trisimpregnated pajamas could not fill orders fast enough, suddenly they were worrying about how to get
rid of the millions of pairs now sitting in warehouses. Because of its toxicity, the sleepwear could not
even be thrown away, let alone sold. Indeed, the CPSC left no doubt about how the pajamas were to be
disposed: buried or burned or used as industrial wiping cloths. This all meant millions of dollars in
losses for manufacturers. The companies affected – mostly small, family-run operations employing
fewer than 100 workers – immediately attempted to shift blame to the mills that made the cloth. When
that attempt failed, they tried to get the big department stores that sold the pajamas and the chemical
companies that produced Tris to share the financial losses. Again, no sale. Finally, in desperation, the
companies lobbied in Washington for a bill making the federal government partially responsible for the
losses. It was the government, they argued, that originally had required the companies to add Tris to
pajamas and then had prohibited their sale. Congress was sympathetic; it passed a bill granting
companies relief. But President Carter vetoed it.
While the small firms were waging their political battle in the halls of Congress, ads began appearing in
the classified pages of Women’s Wear Daily. “Tris-TrisTris We will buy any fabric containing Tris,”
read one. Another said, “Tris—we will purchase any large quantities of garments containing Tris.” The
ads had been placed by exporters, who began buying up the pajamas, usually at 10-30% of the normal
wholesale price. Their intent was clear: to dump the carcinogenic pajamas on overseas markets.
Tris is not the only example of dumping. In 1972, 400 Iraqis died and 5,000 were hospitalized after
eating wheat and barley treated with a U.S.-banned organic mercury fungicide. Winstrol, a synthetic
male hormone that had been found to stunt the growth of American children, was made available in
Brazil as an appetite stimulant for children. Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive known to cause
malignant tumors in animals, was shipped overseas to 70 countries where it was used in U.S.-sponsored
population control programs. And 450,000 baby pacifiers, of the type known to have caused choking
deaths, were exported for sale overseas.
Manufacturers that dump products abroad clearly are motivated by the hope of avoiding financial
losses resulting from having to withdraw a product from the market. For government and health
agencies that cooperate in the exporting of dangerous products, the motives are more complex.
For example, as early as 1971, the dangers of the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device were well
documented. Among the adverse reactions were pelvic inflammation, blood poisoning, pregnancies
resulting in spontaneous abortions, tubal pregnancies, and uterine perforations. A number of deaths
were even attributed to the device. Faced with losing its domestic market, A. H. Robins Co.,
manufacturer of the Dalkon Shield, worked out a deal with the Office of Population within the U. S.
Agency for International Development (AID), whereby AID bought thousands of the devices at a
reduced price for use in population control programs in 42 countries.
Why do governmental and population-control agencies approve the sale and use overseas birth control
devices proved dangerous in the United States? They say their motives are humanitarian. Since the rate
of dying in childbirth is high in Third World countries, almost any birth control device is preferable to
none. Third World scientists and government officials frequently support this argument. They insist that
denying their countries access to the contraceptives of their choice is tantamount to violating their
countries’ national sovereignty.
Sample Argument Outline
(P1)
It is morally acceptable for firms to do things that go against the best interest of stakeholders,
e.g., customers and employees, only if this doesn’t (1) violate the rights of stakeholders or (2)
violate a moral duty that the firm has to those stakeholders
(P2)
Firms that (1) make promises to customers or (2) offer invaluable products or services have a
moral duties to act in the best interest of those customers
(P3)
Mylan has (1) made promises to put patients first and (2) sells life-saving products
(C1)
So, Mylan has a moral duty to act in the best interest of its customers (from P2, P3)
(P4)
Firms that have a duty to act in the best interest of their customers violate that duty if their
products are high priced and those prices are necessary, e.g., to stay in business or to do
research
(P5)
The price of Mylan’s Epipen is not necessary
(C2)
So, Mylan violates its moral duty to its customers by setting the price of the Epipen so high
(from C1, P4, P5)
(C3)
So, it is not morally acceptable for Mylan to set the price of its Epipen so high (from P1, C2)
Note: My ultimate conclusion (my thesis) is that Mylan’s actions are wrong. There are many ways that
I could build a case for that conclusion. For example, I could have argued that it is never
morally permissible for firms to act against the best interests of stakeholders and then I would
only need to show that setting the price of the Epipen so high is not in the best interest of
stakeholders:
(P1)
Managers are morally required to do whatever is in the best interest of shareholders (as long as
this doesn’t me ‘breaking the rules’)
(P2)
Setting the price of Epipens high is in the best interest of shareholders and doesn’t break the
rules of business
(C1)
So, managers of Mylan are morally required to set the price of Epipens high (from P1, P2)
But many people would not accept the claim that firms must act in the best interest of
stakeholders and some would argue that setting the price so high DOES break the rules of
business.
So, instead, I opted for an argument that utilizes the idea that Mylan has a special moral
obligation to its customers. I believe this will make for a stronger argument because it will
utilize premises that are more widely accepted.
Note: Your argument outline doesn’t have to look like this, but I do need to see (1) what your
conclusion is and (2) what claims you’re using to support that conclusion, including (3) the
moral principle(s) that support that conclusion.
Summary for banned products
Manufacturing companies aim at manufacturing and selling products to consumers to
make max profits. However, in the manufacturing of some products, they do not take into
consideration certain issues that can jeopardize the lives of people. Several companies have been
banned in the USA and in other countries for producing products that jeopardize the safety of the
citizens. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in the ground that the pajamas
contained Tris (a flammable retardant chemical known to cause cancer in children) banned the
sale of children retardant pajamas. Other cases of banned products in include, Winstrol, Dalkon
Shield intrauterine device, and Depo-Provera. However, these products are banned in own
country, their manufacturers export them to overseas markets.
Apparently, the manufacture and sale of the products often a coordinated process
between the manufacturers and the government agencies. For the manufacturers, they
manufacture and sell the products to make profits. They cannot imagine the loss they would
incur from having to withdraw their products from the market. To get rid of banned products,
most manufacturers ship them to the overseas market to avoid financial losses. For a government
who approved the sale and use of banned products such as birth control devices, they cite
humanitarian reasons.
The sale and use of products banned based on jeopardizing the health and safety of
citizens are unethical. Although it would be of best interest to produce and sell products that
promote health standards of people a balance must be stricken to ensure the products sold and
used to serve the best interest of the people. Manufacturing companies must uphold corporate
moral duty at all time . They do not only have a positive moral responsibility to their
shareholders but also for the society . they must get the responsibility for all the customers who
purchase the products.
However, in most capitalistic economies where government involvement has limited
right, issues of negative externalities are dominant. In such cases, the manufacturing companies
owe citizens right to better healthcare (a positive right). Citizens should also be granted a
negative right to not to be misled with false information. Giving manufacturing companies a lot
of freedom is a situation that is prevalent in capitalistic economies. In issues relating to the health
of citizens, it would be better if the government makes the ultimate decisions on what who own
the business and who the buyers and the sellers. The government should not wait for market
forces to dictate the production and the manufacturing industry. Business need to be held
accountable for their actions.
2

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.