Research A Case Involving An Actual Or Perceived Dilemma ✓ Solved
Research a case involving an actual or perceived dilemma, an
Research a case involving an actual or perceived dilemma, and then create a case study. Read it thoroughly. After reviewing the case, draft a three-page paper in APA style that includes: a short summary of the facts regarding the ethical element or dilemma; the bulk of the paper should address critical analysis of the premise, its impact on public confidence and organizational effectiveness, and how the public’s perception factors in; a review of legal implications and lasting issues arising from what occurred; what you would have done differently if you held a position of authority; evaluation of what was done correctly; and a concise personal conclusion.
The paper must be at least three pages in length (not including the title page and references). Use APA formatting for citations and references, and include at least one outside source. Include in-text citations and a references list.
The analysis should critically examine how ethical dilemmas influence trust, governance, accountability, and long-term organizational health. Consider the role of leadership, transparency, stakeholder communication, and the mechanisms that either mitigated or amplified public concern. Discuss potential legal ramifications and regulatory implications, as well as enduring “lessons learned” that could inform future policy or practice. Ensure your discussion reflects an integrated understanding of ethics, law, and organizational behavior, and connect your conclusions to broader professional responsibilities and societal expectations.
Your case study should present a coherent narrative that situates the dilemma within a recognizable real-world context, supports arguments with credible outside sources, and demonstrates careful reflection on how you would balance competing interests while maintaining integrity and accountability. The final product should be a polished, APA-style paper suitable for scholarly or professional review.
Paper For Above Instructions
Introduction
The Theranos case provides a compelling real-world lens through which to examine an actual and perceived ethical dilemma at the intersection of science, law, and corporate governance. The firm promised disruptive blood-testing technology that could transform healthcare by enabling rapid, inexpensive, and accessible diagnostics. Publicly, the company operated with high visibility, charismatic leadership, and a narrative of breakthrough innovation. In reality, independent investigators and regulatory authorities uncovered that the technology underpinning those claims did not perform as advertised, and the company was ultimately compelled to shut down, with leadership facing civil and criminal consequences. This case raises fundamental questions about ethical responsibility, public trust, governance structures, legal exposure, and how an organization should respond when critical safety and efficacy standards are not met. The discussion below draws on documented reporting and official actions to analyze the dilemma, its implications, and possible alternative courses of action that could have safeguarded public confidence and organizational legitimacy (Carreyrou, 2018; SEC, 2018; DOJ, 2018).
Case Summary
Theranos was founded with the mission of revolutionizing blood testing through miniature, finger-prick devices. The public narrative emphasized speed, accessibility, and lower costs, while regulators, investors, and journalists began to question whether the underlying technology could reliably produce accurate results. As investigative reporting revealed problems with test accuracy, sample handling, and device validation, employees reported concerns about leadership pressures and the suppression of dissenting data. The core ethical dilemma centered on balancing patient safety and truthful disclosure against the pursuit of rapid growth and investor confidence. The public dimension of the case—how patients, clinicians, and payers would be affected by potentially erroneous results—made the stakes especially high. The timeline culminated in significant legal action, including charges of securities fraud against executives (SEC, 2018) and criminal proceedings (DOJ, 2018), and the company’s dissolution. The case illustrates how misrepresentation about product capabilities, patient risk, and regulatory compliance can undermine trust and trigger cascading consequences for stakeholders (Carreyrou, 2018).
Critical Analysis: Premise, Public Confidence, and Perception
At the heart of the Theranos dilemma was a misalignment among scientific rigor, corporate ambition, and patient safety. Ethical theory emphasizes the primacy of non-maleficence and veracity—do no harm and tell the truth—especially in health technology. When leadership communicates breakthroughs without adequate validation, the risk to patients and to the public’s trust increases substantially. Public confidence hinges on transparency about limitations, independent verification, and responsive governance when data fails to support claimed benefits. Observers noted cultural pressures within Theranos to present a narrative of unstoppable progress, which likely amplified confirmation bias and discouraged critical debate. From an organizational perspective, this eroded internal controls, damaged stakeholder trust, and undermined the legitimacy of governance mechanisms intended to protect patients and investors (Carreyrou, 2018).
Legal implications and long-lasting issues were central to the case. The SEC charged Theranos and executives with securities fraud based on misleading statements to investors about test capabilities and regulatory compliance. The DOJ pursued criminal charges linking deceptive practices to financial misrepresentation. These actions underscore the legal duty to provide truthful disclosures, accurate validation data, and compliant operations. The Theranos example illustrates how violations extend beyond civil liability to potential criminal exposure in cases where intentional deception and material misrepresentation are involved. The broader implications for public health policy concern the adequacy of oversight for laboratory testing technology, clinical validation standards, and the accountability of corporate leadership when scientific claims risk patient harm (SEC, 2018; DOJ, 2018).
In terms of public perception, media coverage, regulatory scrutiny, and investor reactions coalesced to rapidly erode legitimacy. The case demonstrates how public narratives—often shaped by charisma and optimistic messaging—can create a misleading sense of feasibility about a medical technology. Once external verification fails to corroborate claims, public trust does not simply waver; it can collapse, leading to service disruption, financial losses, and reputational damage that persists long after the immediate crisis is resolved. This underscores the need for ongoing, credible communication with stakeholders and for ensuring that public-facing messages are anchored in proven data and independent validation (Carreyrou, 2018; The New York Times, 2018).
Authority, Governance, and How It Could Have Been Handled Differently
If positioned as a leader responsible for risk management and public welfare, a different approach would emphasize rigorous validation, independent testing, and a culture that encourages dissent and transparent reporting. Early-stage leadership should have prioritized clinical validation studies, pilot data, and third-party replication before publicizing capabilities. A robust governance framework—comprising independent board committees, external auditors, and a strict escalation pathway for safety concerns—could have mitigated the potential for misrepresentation. When data indicated shortcomings, timely disclosure to regulators and investors, coupled with a credible remediation plan, would have maintained some legitimacy and reduced subsequent penalties and reputational harm. In short, prioritizing patient safety, verifiable evidence, and transparent stakeholder communication would have altered the trajectory of the public confrontation and the legal exposure that followed (SEC, 2018; Carreyrou, 2018).
Was Anything Done Correctly?
In retrospect, limited elements of the organization’s response demonstrated partial alignment with professional norms. Some internal and external stakeholders advocated for caution and data transparency, but these voices were insufficient to counteract the dominant narrative of rapid innovation. The case highlights that even when a few individuals pursue rigorous validation and ethical disclosure, systemic governance weaknesses can override these efforts. It emphasizes the importance of cultivating an organizational culture where evidence-based decision-making and safety concerns are prioritized over short-term market signals. The Theranos narrative offers a warning about overreliance on charismatic leadership as a substitute for robust, independent verification and regulatory compliance (Carreyrou, 2018; SEC, 2018).
Conclusion and Personal Reflection
The Theranos case illustrates a severe ethical and governance failure with far-reaching implications for public health, investor confidence, and organizational legitimacy. It demonstrates that failing to uphold core professional responsibilities—veracity, transparency, patient safety, and regulatory compliance—can precipitate profound and lasting consequences. If I had been in a leadership position, I would have institutionalized rigorous independent validation, created strict governance check-points for public claims, and established a transparent communications protocol to ensure stakeholders are accurately informed. While innovation is essential, it cannot justify compromising safety or scientific integrity. This case reinforces the imperative that ethical leadership, governance, and accountability structures must be designed to withstand pressure for rapid growth and sensational messaging. The enduring lesson is clear: trust is earned through consistent, evidence-based action, not by compelling narratives that outpace verifiable results.
References
Carreyrou, J. (2018). Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. Knopf.
Carreyrou, J. (2015, October 16). Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Is New Icon of Silicon Valley. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2018). SEC Charges Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and Sunny Balwani with Securities Fraud. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-5
U.S. Department of Justice. (2018). Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes charged with fraud. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-charged-fraud
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Warning Letter to Theranos, Inc. https://www.fda.gov
The New York Times. (2018). Theranos Is Shutting Down. https://www.nytimes.com
The Guardian. (2016). Theranos under scrutiny: The blood-testing startup’s collapse. https://www.theguardian.com
Fortune. (2016). Theranos: The long, strange decline of a blood-testing startup. https://fortune.com
BBC News. (2016). Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes under investigation. https://www.bbc.com
The Wall Street Journal. (2018). Elizabeth Holmes Faces Fraud Charges. https://www.wsj.com