Reference no: EM133173791

A supervisor tells Buddy, a newly hired employee, to extend the expiration dates on some medications, contradicting his training and better judgment.  Buddy works for Stoller, a medical warehouse supplying medicine and equipment to hospitals.  Stoller trained Buddy for the first two months of his employment, educating him in hospital and clinic regulations, laws, various system procedures, and software applications. 

Stoller supplies hospitals in three states. When these hospitals conduct their annual inventory, the warehouse replaces expired medication with new products. Quila, Buddy's supervisor, assigns him the task of traveling to an area hospital and inspecting expired inventory. However, instead of replacing the expired over-the-counter medications, Quila tells him to replace only the labels. Quila provides Buddy with labels featuring extended expiration dates. 

Quila says the company uses shorter expiration dates than their competitors, putting them at a disadvantage.  She identifies the idea of replacement labels as her idea. When Buddy questions the product's safety, Quila assures him their competitors offer longer expiration dates and cause no harm. 

Buddy's dilemma is whether to follow Quila's instructions or not.  He can remember personally taking expired over-the-counter medications in the past with no ill effects, and the new labels only extended the time by three months.  However, his feeling of unease grew because this went against his training, which cautioned against using expired medication.  How could he explain the lack of credit on the account when he asked someone to sign off on the paperwork when he left?  How would he explain the "new policy" to them without being dishonest?

Consider the following:

What is the problem? (Clearly state the problem)

What ethical principles guide you in this case?

What are the alternatives for solving this dilemma?

What are the consequences for each alternative generated?