Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Moral dilemma - I know everyone likes these.

89 replies

KIQFTM · 01/10/2004 10:38

Am a regular poster and might end up giving myself away here but ho hum...

A few months ago I was asked to take part in a survey of a product for big multi-national company, a RICH multi-national company. For testing said product for 16 weeks I would be paid the princely sum of £100.

HOWEVER. One of the the provisos for not doing it was if I became pregnant. Well, I have.

So, do I cough up or do I continue (partner's idea) since they would never know anyway. They don't know whether I'm doing as I promised anyway, it's all on trust. In theory, I might not have found out I was pregnant until after the trial period ended. The product is not dangerous.

So, am I a wuss or an upstanding member of the community?

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 02/10/2004 14:21

imo carla is right.

carla · 02/10/2004 14:22

And totally forgot to say ... CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Original poster
KIQFTM · 02/10/2004 14:23

Rowlers - have done 4 weeks now. Should at least get £25 shouldn't I?

OP posts:
hercules · 02/10/2004 14:24

But if you dont like the terms then why agree to them. Kiqftym knew it was on condition of her not getting pregnant so what have the company done wrong. They havent lied to her or cheated her. If she takes the money then how is she any different to companies who are actually unethical?

jampot · 02/10/2004 14:25

if becoming pregnant can affect the product why not just test it on men?

Original poster
KIQFTM · 02/10/2004 14:27

jampot - it'll be marketed at women

OP posts:
jampot · 02/10/2004 14:28

non pregnant women?

Original poster
KIQFTM · 02/10/2004 14:30

Doubt it. But I think their view would be that since your skin may or may not change when you are pregnant and you may or may not sweat more when you are pregnant, the result may not be true if you are pregnant. Don't know but they may be doing a similar controlled trial on pregnant women. Having looked at their website, I'm fairly certain which product it is I'm testing

OP posts:
Original poster
KIQFTM · 02/10/2004 14:31

And it's very good. If I named it on here I should get paid £1000's

OP posts:
edam · 02/10/2004 14:51

I'd tell them but I bet they'll pay you anyway. If they are testing their product on women, it's inevitable that some of these women will become pregnant; it just one of those things that happens.

I'd tell them because a. it's the right thing to do b. pregnancy may skew the results, which could affect other product users down the line.

I would be very surprised if they failed to pay you, to be honest. You've already done some work for them, and you haven't deliberately undermined their study, you've just got pregnant which is something that can happen to any fertile woman no matter how good the contraception.

Go on, you know it will make you feel better! And if they are a major multi-national company, they aren't going to worry about paying you £100 for a partially-completed project.

Fran1 · 02/10/2004 16:27

I havn't read all of these messages,

but my advice is take the money, and don't tell anyone about it. Then you don't have people giving you guilt trips!!

dolally · 02/10/2004 21:33

What an interesting debate!

Don't suppose your decision is any easier now than when you started this thread? Why not test the ethics of this multinational... IF you decide to come clean let's just see if they cough up just one quarter of the fee, the whole lot, or just say bye bye? If they do the latter you'll be £100 poorer but morally far richer.... (that may be no consolation at all)!

marthamoo · 02/10/2004 21:42

What if you didn't know you were pregnant?

Congratulations by the way (am staying out of the actual moral dilemma - go on, call me a wuss!)

SofiaAmes · 02/10/2004 21:45

KIQFTM, an aside here, why do you have to pay for your nuchal fold scan? My understanding was that it was standard to offer it (or the blood tests) to you if you are over the age of 35 (?) and that in any case if you are under that age it's results are pretty meaningless....Maybe you discussed this in another thread and I missed it. I had one done on my 2nd pregnancy and despite perfectly good results ended up having an amnio anyway. I had the blood tests for my first pregnancy and thought they were much more reliable because they did not involve a human making a relative decision (I did quite a bit of research on this).

Original poster
KIQFTM · 02/10/2004 21:57

It is an interesting debate isn't it? Of course I could always tell you all I've decided to cough up and then keep the money

Sofia - I did start another thread about it - it's under Pregnancy if you're interested. But, yes, I do have to pay for one and would have to travel 50 miles to get there. And I'm over 35. Your last sentence - are you saying you had the blood test a the same time as the nuchal fold scan and they, altogether ,were more reliable?

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 02/10/2004 22:23

yes, ime you need blood test and nuchal scan together, is about £100 at the london fetal medicine centre...v good.

handlemecarefully · 02/10/2004 22:26

And I suppose those of you taking a very black and white 'theft is theft line' are so morally unimpeachable that you've never driven at 71 mph on the motorway either.....or accepted an unexpired pay and display ticket from anther motorist etc etc (sorry they are all driving analogies....).

Heathcliffscathy · 02/10/2004 22:26

hmc

paolosgirl · 02/10/2004 23:37

I think you can take the moral high ground and hand back the money, or you can accept that no-one gets rich on morals alone, as per this company, and keep the money. This research will be 'adjusted' accordingly, to suit the company involved - your testing the product is academic, believe me (as one who knows!)

carla · 02/10/2004 23:41

PG Reveal All !!!!

SofiaAmes · 02/10/2004 23:45

oh jamiesam, I'm so sorry for accusing you of swearing at me...I get it now, you were swearing at yourself for your typos...that's ok, I have no objection to self directed swearing.

sophable, I'm sorry to sound so agitated about this, but I grew up in Berkeley, CA the home of bleeding heart liberal hippies. And I saw one too many cases of warped morals that somehow seemed to make it ok to steal/cheat/etc. etc. as long as you were politically more correct than the person you were stealing from.

hmc, actually for the most part I do 60 on the motorway because I think it's safer in my little car and I am fanatical about not speeding in the city (for fear of hitting a pedestrian). However, if I do occasionally break a road rule, I don't do it while saying to myself "oh well that's a bad law anyway and it shouldn't apply to me so it's ok if I break it." I like to think that it's done inadvertantly, or at a minimum with a large amount of guilt.
I think that the point is that one should aspire to be lawful, honest and moral. If you slip, then you should feel guilty about it and aspire to do better. If you truly object to a law or rule, then you should do something proactive about it (and I don't consider a bit of shoplifting/petty thievery a valid protest to the "evil" of multi-nationals).
KIQFTM's dilemma seems like a no-brainer to me. She's pregnant, knows that she's pregnant, so she tells them she's pregnant. I think that if she only found out some time after doing the study that in fact she had been pregnant during some portion of it, then perhaps it might be worth telling them after the fact that she had been pregnant, but I wouldn't expect her to return the money as she hadn't actually lied to them or withheld the truth.
I really think that it should be irrelevant whether the company is rich or a multi-national or on whatever bad guys list.

Also, could it be possible that there is some chemical in the product (I'm assuming that it's deodorant that we're talking about) that could in fact be potentially harmful to a foetus and therefore their warning about pregnancy is actually important, rather than frivolous.

Forestfly · 03/10/2004 08:22

Multinationals invest in Nuclear Power- a link to the production of nuclear weapons and pollution through nuclear waste.
They support oppressive regimes which involve torture, extraducial killings, denial of religious freedoms
They employ children, poor wages, slave labour, 48 hour shifts
They fund weapons, genetic engineering, factory farming
They have no regard for the environment.
Also there marketing is truly irresponsible and has no thought for humanity just profit.
I wouldn't think twice about taking 100 pounds, and i really don't see the problem in swearing in the right circumstances.
I am tired of society being controlled, people walking around following somebody elses rules and morals, being dictated to about what is right and wrong and never making a stand or breaking free.

hester · 03/10/2004 12:49

The issue of testing products on pregnant women (or women who may get pregnant) is interesting. Multinationals (especially pharmaceuticals) have often avoided testing products on women at all, because of the risk of inadvertantly causing birth defects and getting sued for zillions. But the problem with that is that men's and women's bodies do work differently in a number of ways, and there are real risks in marketing products that have only been tested on men. I seem to remember there was a campaign about this when they were testing the early anti-retroviral treatments for HIV, which meant that women with HIV were not getting access to the drugs, and so dying... Great being protected from birth defects, but little comfort if it means not getting life-saving treatment. In this case, I guess the company is trying to protect itself from the outside possibility of getting sued, though there is probably not a significant possibility of risk or they wouldn't trial on unscreened women (some of whom will get pregnant).

Another issue is that pregnant women may be more sensitised to topical products, so if a number of testers reporting getting allergic reactions the company would want to know if those women were pregnant.

Ameriscot2004 · 03/10/2004 13:00

DH works for a not-so-evil multinational, and he has worked in anti-perspirant R&D during his career.

I asked him about a 16 week test with a medical contraindication (eg pregnancy), and he said that they wouldn't do that kind of test unless it was a safety/clinical test involving new chemicals, or chemicals at much higher levels than already commonly used. As a pregnant women, you should not continue the test.

For simple efficacy (the product working as claimed), they'd only do a 2 week test and wouldn't prohibit pregnant women.

He said that his company would definitely compensate you for the work already done, and would probably pay the full whack.

As with any contract that you enter into, there are two sides - and you have to keep your side of the bargain as well as them.

Original poster
KIQFTM · 03/10/2004 13:56

Thanks all again. I had wondered on the possibility of potential harm to an unborn baby but, although possible, consider it not likely to be probable. What would be the point of testing a product and finding out it is great and then saying, a) but pregnant women can't use it or b) removing the component that makes it safer - since that would then not be the product that has been tested. Plus, there is the simple fact that some woman will, unknowingly, get pregnant. If it were dangerous dangerous, I don't think being stopped in a car park and being asked to take part would be the correct way to go about it, unless targeting obviously post-menopausal women. But, hey, what do I know? If it's truly dangerous, then their selection and testing methods are definitely unethical

OP posts: