What is more important life or mitigating financial loss? The case of “The Sole Remaining Supplier” looks at that question. In 1975 pacemaker technology was in its early years. The technology was so new that doctors were not very skilled at the installation of the pacemakers. Once installed these units acted as the patient’s normal heartbeat and any malfunction would have caused certain death. The pacemaker units were very sensitive and there had been a story of a “patient pulling the pacemaker wire in his chest, and dying after yawning deeply,” (Sole, para. 3). Stanton Medical Technologies manufactured these pacemakers. Stanton had only one transistors supplier because others would not sell to them. The Stanton Medical Technologies did not have an adequate check for the transistors reliability. Stanton needed transistors in the manufacturing of the pacemakers. Their sole supplier doesn’t want to supply them any more with the transistors. The transistor suppliers felt that it could also be legally responsible for damages if a major lawsuit were to be brought against Stanton. Any profit made from selling to Stanton for pacemaker manufacturing would be consumed by potential losses from legal proceedings. This isn’t a fiscally sound risk for the transistor supplier. The transistor supplier holds Stanton’s future in its hands. If they don’t supply the transistors, Stanton will go out of business, pacemakers will not be made and the people who need them will die. The transistor supplier must decide on the best course of action for the ethical dilemmas faced.
The ethical issues the transistor supplier faced were many. The supplier must weigh the option of continuing to sell the transistors to Stanton against the possible financial loss if a lawsuit were to occur and how that lawsuit would affect its employees and shareholders. The supplier must also look at its own transistor technology. How many deaths will occur because of malfunctions with the transistors? By not supplying Stanton with transistors, it will effectively put the pacemaker company out of business. Without a company manufacturing the units, patients in need of them will surely die. Also the technology will not improve and future patients will not benefit from any breakthroughs in the making of pacemakers. In order to make the right decision, the primary stakeholders must be considered.
The primary stakeholders that should be considered are as follows:
1. Stanton Medical Technologies (its employees and its shareholders): Stanton Medical Technologies will go out of business if the supplier does not sell the transistors required for the manufacture of the pacemakers. The employees will be out of work and the shareholders will lose money.
2. The supplier company (its employees and its shareholders): The supplier company runs the risk of legal action and damages if it continues to supply the transistors for pacemakers. This could result in possible employee layoffs and shareholders losing profit.
3. The patients who need the pacemaker implant: Will face certain death if Stanton closes because it doesn’t have transistors to manufacture the pacemakers. The patients may still die if the transistor in the pacemaker malfunctions.
4. Future Patients (even though they are not a primary stakeholder): They could possibly benefit from advances in pacemaker technology if Stanton continues to do business.

The supplier should look at the possible options available to the company. These are the possible options for the transistor supplier.
1. Stop selling the transistors to Stanton Medical Technologies: Even though the supplier will lose the profit earned from the sale of the transistors to Stanton, it will not jeopardize the company as a whole from the financial losses that could incur from potential lawsuits. Also the individual rights of the supplier’s employees and stakeholders will be preserved. The employees will still have the opportunity to earn a living. This might not be possible if layoffs were to occur after financial losses due to a lawsuit.
2. Continue selling the transistors to Stanton Medical Technologies: This option will keep Stanton Medical Technologies in business. Society and future patients might benefit from breakthroughs in pacemaker technology. The potential to save lives outweighs the potential financial risk that may occur for the supplier. It preserves the right of Stanton’s employees and shareholders to earn a living and make a profit. It preserves the rights of the patient by giving them a choice. The patient will decide if the malfunction risk is worth implanting the pacemaker.
In order to benefit the most people, the most ethical decision would be to continue to supply the transistors to Stanton Medical Technologies. If Stanton could not manufacture the pacemakers, a basic right would be lost for the potential pacemaker users. The potential pacemaker users would lose their freedom to life. People’s lives should outweigh any thought of financial gains or losses to a company. Also, since this technology is new, consideration must be given to how people would benefit in the future. The employees of Stanton would keep their right to earn a living and its shareholders the right to potentially gain wealth. This could possibly increase if the technology expands. This decision is the only one that would serve the most people.

References
The sole remaining supplier.