Ethical Business Decision Making
In most states, the sale of items recovered from dead bodies, such as golden teeth, is legal. There is no actual law that stops the sale of human body parts for education and research. In the chosen article, the Federal Bureau of Investigation looks into a funeral home that sells human body parts and items found on them for a profit. The owner, Megan Hess and her family have been known by former employees to pull gold teeth from the corpses in their possession. In fact, the past year had seen them take the whole family on a trip to Disneyland from the profits made from the gold they cashed.
The family runs a funeral home, crematory and body broker in the same facility- an operation that raises multiple ethical concerns. Several funeral directors describe that having such side businesses as a conflict of interest. This is because the three businesses have different purposes, which means none of them are interested in helping the disposition of bodies, rather in making a profit.
The owners never reveal that the bodies being donated would be sold for a profit. The family continues to make a profit from donor bodies without letting families know, something which is not only unethical but deceptive (Grow, 2018). Furthermore, the fact that Hess refuses to discuss their business practices and explain what is going on raises more questions. The lack of transparency leaves room for more unethical actions by the business.
The state department of Regulatory Agencies has none complaints against the business, a higher than normal number of complaints about funeral homes. The human body trade is largely unregulated, which allows such businesses to operate freely. Another problematic aspect of this business is that the business’s body broker company operates like a regular store, taking orders for body parts via email and its website. Donors can simply choose from a drop-down menu on the website and ‘add to cart’- an action that completely dehumanizes the mortuary science (Grow, 2018). Furthermore, the owner had listed a Ph. D. in mortuary science amongst her credentials- a degree that does not exist in the United States.
The body donor aspect of this business raises the most moral questions. The lack of federal law regulating the sale of body parts for research or education allows this business to exist and make a heavy profit. The state of Colorado violates moral rights by their lack of body broker regulation and funeral director licensure. This laxity allows such people as Hess to make profits with unfair burial and cremation charges, donation prices and dissection and sale of body parts.
Hess further violates moral rights by bragging about how much money she makes from selling body parts. Her actions take away the human decency of donating body parts, minimizing the action into one of making as much profit as possible. This immorality is seen in a case where Hess was required to return a deceased individual’s glass eye to their family for sentimental purposes. However, the eye was never located and only after threats of suing was a check written.
Hess’s final moral violation is the misleading brochure provided by the business that states that being an organ donor makes one a hero. This marketing language is deceptive and emotionally manipulative as people are pushed to donate organs with the belief that they will be helping someone somewhere. Meanwhile, they are simply making people like Hess richer and their families lose the sentimental aspect of their people’s remains.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that describes the most ethical choice as the one that would produce the most good for the highest number of people. This theory is commonly used for moral reasoning in business or military force. However, its main limitation is that sometimes the greatest good for the many is not always acceptable nor ethical (Boone, 2017). In this case, a utilitarian would recommend completely changing federal law regarding the regulation of body brokers. By ensuring funeral and broker services are regulated and checked, people like Hess will not have room to benefit from good-willed donors, and a high number of people will benefit from this course of action.
Kantian ethics are concerned with what individuals do, rather than their consequences. More specifically, that goodwill justifies duty. One cannot justify a bad action by good consequences. Rather, people have a duty to act rightly, regardless of the consequences that may arise (Bowie, 2017). A Kantian would therefore recommend that Hess’ entire operation is disbanded, since the business has not displayed any good will or choices. Furthermore, their goodwill has led to the business’ gain while taking away burial rites’ decency. Donors believe they are performing a duty to help those who need their organs while Hess distorts this goodwill by profiting unfairly from selling body parts.
Ethical decision making has to consider morality and the rightness of an action regardless of the profitability it may provide. Businesses cater to human beings and treating them as less than shows a lack of ethical sense.
References
Boone, B. (2017). Ethics 101: From altruism and utilitarianism to bioethics and political ethics, an exploration of the concepts of right and wrong. Simon and Schuster.
Bowie, N. E. (2017). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Grow, B. (2018). FBI scrutinizes funeral home running a side business: selling human body parts. Reuters Investigates. Retrieved 29 Aug from https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-bodies-funeral/