I think it's safe to remove probably.
This went down a chain of people. CEO. VP. PM. Tech Lead. Developer.
All of them made a choice to kill people for profit.
This went down a chain of people. CEO. VP. PM. Tech Lead. Developer.
All of them made a choice to kill people for profit.
Every C-level exec that was aware this happened and let it happen should be charged with a single count of involuntary manslaughter for every patient who had an opioid overdose that was prescribed pain medication by this system.
This is not acceptable, and people's heads should roll.
The responsibility ultimately rests with the person who puts the drug in their own body. You can make an argument that their physician is in a position of trust, and that some responsibility lies with their prescribing it.
Extending it out to the workers of the vendor is as silly as extending it out to the workers of the keyboard vendor.
The software can not force people to ingest pills.
It is important to remember that humans, regardless of their level of ignorance, are responsible for themselves and their own actions.
Encouraging people to make bad decisions isn’t the issue at all, even if the final result would not have happened without such encouragement.
Gun manufacturers? People who build cars that have a known higher fatality rate? People who build swimming pools (look up how many kids die to swimming pools a year)? People who sell unhealthy food? People who make tech/video games that result in less physical activity?
If I manufacture guns, odds are I also own guns.
If I make sports cars, odds are I also like to drive sports cars.
People who build swimming pools swim. People who sell junk food buy junk food. People who make video games play video games.
The people in your examples are all selling things they probably want to be able to buy. Perhaps you disagree with their decisions, but they are acting out of a good-faith belief that the things they make are good.
No one wants to have someone try to get them hooked on opioids.
Follow the Golden Rule.
(Maybe the junk food and video games examples are different, since some foods and games are deliberately addictive.)
Yes and no. I'm not sure who and where sells true junk food; the usual culprit - McD, KFC - sell food that's unhealthy in the long run, but it's also cheap, tasty and quick to get, making it desirable in many different situation.
(Also, frankly, I think McDonald's may be better for you than equivalents from a "normal" restaurant. Large fast food chains are ridiculously optimized, but they have standards to meet and an individual location doesn't have the freedom to screw with it. Meanwhile in a random restaurant, I always have to worry how cheap they get with the ingredients and their process, and whether e.g. the meat I'm getting was actually grilled, or was just microwaved and then decorated with grill marks. I don't know anyone currently working on the "back end" of a typical restaurant, but from second-hand reports I keep hearing, I'm not reassured about quality.)
And "videogames" as a product category is too broad for this consideration. On one end of the spectrum you have beautiful, engaging videogames designed by passionate creators who absolutely build what they'd like to play. On the other end, you have the bottom-feeding Zynga-like garbage that's essentially gambling in disguise, designed from grounds-up to screw players over.
Now, the C levels probably aren't the same, but they are the same in that they aren't the same across industries.