He claims that a small percentage of the users will develop tumors after about twenty years. Since no one else is likely to run the tests needed to determine whether this is true, if you do nothing there may be no consequences for twenty years.

This is an ethical dilemma and we must acknowledge that the company as a whole owe a duty of care to the whole stakeholder and society in which she operates. The utilitarianism says that if the outcome of an act is going to safe maximum amount of people then it must be opted as it is the best option available. And this is possible only when we stop the production of the medicine and order expensive testing of the drug whether it is safe to use or not. Furthermore if don't do that then it will have consequences far beyond imaginations. If we didn't acted in the best interest of our stakeholders and ignored that then we are following egoistic approach. Remember that consumer law clearly states that consumer must not be harmed by the company's product and services. The company's precautions to safegaurd from harm due to the usage of the product must be quite enough to prevent the damages to customer. This means are complying the law and what I would do if the senior management denies to order further testing of the product then I will file a complain to the drug authority and discuss the matter with them.

well based on 99% of parents have dont something wrong to there kids mabey even stole money from you so based on maney inccedent i would choose guilt

answer: yo mama

explanation: yo mama