Medek LLC, Resource Recovery&Trading LLC, and AJR Trading: Hand Sanitizer Recall (2020)

Ethics Case Controversy 

Consumers using hand sanitizer 

            What we are looking at is to see if Medek, LLC, Resource Recovery & Trading LLC and AJR Trading acted ethically when they were producing methanol contaminated hand sanitizer. Digging a little bit deeper, we know that the major increase of hand sanitizer demand caused companies to start producing a variety of hand sanitizer to distribute the product faster. So, was the use of methanol and accident because they were trying to work fast or was it purposely used to create a stronger disinfectant? We can see why there would be the need for a stronger disinfectant because of the COVID-19 outbreak. The desire for better hygiene and keeping hands clean made people desperate to try anything that killed the most bacteria. 

damaged hands from sanitizer

Medek LLC “voluntarily” began to recall their hand sanitizer nationwide when the FDA performed an analysis on the product and found “the M Hand Sanitizer to contain methanol and be sub-potent for ethanol.” Using any product comes with a risk but the side effects to methanol exposure became very dangerous very fast. “Substantial Methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system, or death.” A major concern was the exposure of the product to young kids who would very likely ingest said hand sanitizer which would increase the likelihood of methanol poisoning. Medek notified the customers and distributors about the recall on the methanol contaminated hand sanitizer and suggested that they all stop using, purchasing, or providing the product until they knew it was safe again. The FDA also gave a hotline number that provides information to those with questions about the product to help people fill in the blanks that came with the recall.
    Resource Recovery & Trading LLC also,  recalled their hand sanitizer when the question of a presence of methanol in the product came to surface. “The main concern with the use of hand sanitizer that is sub-potent for ethyl alcohol is the potential for decreases bactericidal and virucidal activity. The health consequences can result in the opposite effect, an increase in infections. The product is used to “decrease germs when soap and water is not available” but small children can ingest the product or adults/adolescents drink the product because of the alcohol, increasing the probability of poisoning. RR&T LLC put out a notice telling all consumers, buyers, and providers to stop using the product and return all hand sanitizer to the location in which it was purchased again, once the FDA came to the conclusion their hand sanitizer was dangerous. 

“According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), AJR Trading issued a recall on 2,004 units of Advance Hand Sanitizer currently in US distribution.” The lot of hand sanitizer based test and met all the appropriate specifications and requirements. That being said with a possibility of the presence of methanol in other lots of hand sanitizer that has been recently produced, they recalled everything. AJR classifies young children and teenagers as high risk to the problem as they are most likely the ones that will physically end up with the methanol substance in their bodies rather than adults who just use it on their hand. The FDA was taking no chances when the question of methanol surfaced with any company. With the safety of the consumers their main priority they wanted all potential harmful sanitizers recalled. 

COVID-19

With the outbreak of COVID, many hand sanitizer companies have been rushing and speeding up their production time to distribute hand sanitizer. “In these uncertain times of critical personal hygiene caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, some manufacturers have sought to profit by selling a variety of ‘hand sanitizer’ products containing dangerous amounts of a toxic and potentially lethal chemical.” Methanol is indeed a type of alcohol, it used to make industrial products such as solvents, antifreeze, and different types of fuels. That being said, all those products are not meant for humans to consistently apply to their skin like hand sanitizer. “Human exposure can occur through both ingestion and skin absorption” which can result in serious health consequences. The FDA came forward and said that methanol is not an acceptable ingredient for the use of making hand sanitizer and has found at least 75 hand sanitizer products that possibly contained methanol. “The FDA advises that these products should not be used and should be disposed of as a hazardous waste.” If a human has used a methanol contained hand sanitizer the FDA highly recommends that they seek medical attention, even if they are not showing poison symptoms, so they can reverse the damage before it is too late. 

FDA Logo

“The FDA continues to warn consumers and health care professionals not to use certain alcohol-based hand sanitizers due to the dangerous presence of methanol.” On top of that, the FDA has taken action to prevent particular hand sanitizer from entering the US by putting hand sanitizer on an import alert. “Consumers must also be vigilant about which hand sanitizers they use, and for their health and safety we urge consumers to immediately stop using all hand sanitizers on the FDA’s list of dangerous hand sanitizer products.” The FDA made an 
announcement which overall concluded that hand hygiene is important but we need to be careful with what products we actually use. The list of dangerous hand sanitizers is constantly being updated because methanol doesn’t usually appear on product labels. If a hand sanitizer manufacturer fails to recall dangerous sanitizer that places consumers in danger they can be held responsible for the resulting health consequences of said consumer. When looking at the FDA provided list consumers need to look for Manufacturer name, product name, and national drug code to see if the sanitizer is safe. 

 

Stakeholders

            In this dilemma, there are three groups of stakeholders. The first group consists of Medek LLC, Resource Recovery & Trading LLC and AJR Trading. They are the ones providing the methanol hand sanitizer to the public ultimately putting all the consumers at risk. Then we have the FDA. The FDA made the companies recall their products because it was harmful to the people. Last are the consumers that used the product. By using the hand sanitizer they were put at risk of major health problems that could have been avoided. 

 

Individualism

            The overall goal of the Individualist Theory is to maximize a stakeholders profit/happiness and for everyone to act rationally/ in their best interest. All three companies maximized their happiness and profit by letting consumers buy their products as the demand for the hand sanitizers continued to rise. The companies were happy because they were bringing lots of money in. Although they were happy, they were not acting rationally/in their best interest. Medek, RR&T, and AJRT manipulated their consumers and let them buy a product that was dangerous.  

            If the companies had taken their time to produce safe hand sanitizers they wouldn’t be in the situation they are in now. Currently, they lost money by having to recall their hand sanitizer and start from scratch to make sure what they were producing is safe for their consumers. Both the producer and consumers were being hurt because of the loss of money on the business end and the health problems on the consumer side. If they acted rationally from the beginning they wouldn’t be out money and their consumers would have been safe. 

 

Utilitarianism

         When talking about the Utilitarian Theory, the goal we need to have in mind is to create or promote happiness to as many people as possible. As we have seen Medek, RR&T, and AJRT have done the complete opposite. Due to failure of producing safe sanitizer, many of their customers found themselves or a loved one in the hospital. Babies were ingesting said sanitizer and parents were watching their kid suffer from poisoning that they weren’t aware of. Adults were having extreme headaches and found themselves in coma’s, again, because of poisoning they were not aware of. Obviously, if someone is in the hospital for poisoning, there is no happiness. 

            That being said the sanitizer companies weren’t happy when their products were on recall. As the FDA made announcements telling consumers to throw out or bring the hand sanitizer back to the distributer, RR&T, AJRT, and Medek saw money going down the drain. Knowing they lost money and were the reason many people came down with Methanol Poisoning surely didn’t bring them happiness. 

 

Kantianism

            Ethical decisions that are motivated by the idea of a rational decisions is the idea behind the Kantianism Theory. The Kant Theory also is revolved around the idea of the “Formula of Humanity.” This idea tells us that we should treat others the way we want to be treated and not as means. If you treat someone as a mean you are not acting ethically because you are using them to amplify your own happiness without paying any attention to how others are affected. 

 When taking the actions of the three hand sanitizer companies into consideration we can see they are unethical under the Kantianism theory. These companies were motivated by self-interest (getting the sanitizer out quickly to stores and consumers) rather than their duty (making sure the product was safe to go out to the market). The rational decision for them to quickly produce hand sanitizer and ship it off knowing it contained methanol is not ethical. If the rational decision is not ethical it fails to meet the requirements of Kantianism. 

            If they had acted ethically, the result of this error would be different. For starters, the companies should have recalled the sanitizers not the FDA. When the FDA made the announcement it made the companies look like they were trying to cover their error. Ethically, Medek, RR&T, and AJRT should have taken responsibility for their error before the FDA. Also, if they had taken a second to look at what they were producing, they could have found how methanol was ending up in their product. Instead, they continued working without giving it a second thought. 

 

Virtue Theory 

         The Virtue Theory revolves around four characteristics: courage, honestly, self-control, and justice/fairness. The first aspect is Courage and what this basically is, is the willingness or willing to take a risk for the right actions or ideas. The companies took a risk by producing hand sanitizer that was dangerous to the consumers. By producing the methanol contaminated sanitizer and not giving the methanol problem a second thought they took a risk. The thought of the safety of the consumers who would use the produce was not a thought in the producers minds otherwise they would have checked over the sanitizer to make sure it was safe. 

            Honesty on the Virtue Theory is described as being truthful with the public. Obviously, we can tell that this was not the case. There was not honesty with the public because the companies let their customers use a dangerous product without giving a warning. Ethically, if the companies were going to continue to sell the hand sanitizers with methanol, there should be a warning on the bottle telling the consumers. If there is a warning, the consumers are buying the product at their own will BUT they are informed about the potential dangers of using the product. 

            Self-Interest (AKA Temperance) are the expectations and desires the employees have for their companies. We see here that those desires don’t line up with the society’s expectations. Although, our producers wanted to maximize their profit, they were taking the wrong steps. The goal in which they had, has two paths to get to it. One, caring about the people as much as they care about their company and two, doing whatever they need to do to get to the top. They got to their goal by taking the unethical path. 

            Finally, the hard work, ideas, and fair practice all fall under the last virtue, Justice. The companies were working to make good hand sanitizer to kill germs/virus’ like COVID-19. Even though they were trying to make a good product, they ended up doing more harm than good. They had the right idea by trying to kill germs but the lack of effort to make the product safe is where they fall short. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation: 

            After researching this problem. I believe that the companies could have prevented the recalls. If Medek, RR&T, and AJRT had a closer eye on their product all the health problems that were reported could have been prevented. Also, they shouldn’t have waited for the FDA to announce a recall, they should have done it themselves. With them waiting for the FDA, they made it seem as if it wasn’t as big of deal as it was. It is better if a company does their own recall I also feel that both of the companies didn’t have the consumers best interest when they were producing the hand sanitizer. If they did, there would have been a notice on the bottle so they aren’t taking the choice away from consumers to buy a safer product. Under the four ethical theories I had discussed, I believe that in every situation the actions that were observed in this study are ruled to be unethical. 

 

Company Action Plan

Currently, the FDA has published a list telling consumers what brands of hand sanitizers not to buy. They are aware of the health consequences that can result from methanol and are on high alert monitoring the producing companies, distributors, and consumers. This is best compared to the contact tracing we do for COVID positive patients. The FDA watches where the hand sanitizer goes so if someone gets methanol poisoning they can trace it to the right back to the production facility. The investigation to find more companies that use methanol in their hand sanitizers is still ongoing. The FDA is advising that anyone who has come down with symptoms to get medical treatment immediately and to report their symptoms so sanitizer can be traced back.

“FDA remains vigilant and will continue to take action when quality issues arise with hand sanitizers. The agency is especially concerned with:

• The dangers of drinking any hand sanitizer under any conditions. While hand sanitizers with possible methanol contamination are more life-threatening than those that are not contaminated, FDA urges consumers not to drink any of these products. 
• Certain hand sanitizers that may not contain a sufficient amount of ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol.
• Hand sanitizers that are sold or offered for sale with false and misleading, unproven claims that they can prevent the spread of viruses such as COVID-19, including claims that they can provide prolonged protection (e.g., for up to 24-hours).
• Products that are fraudulently marketed as “FDA-approved” since there are no hand sanitizers approved by FDA.
• Products packaged to appear as drinks, candy or liquor bottles, as well as products marketed as drinks or cocktails because their appearance could result in accidental ingestion or encourage ingestion. Children are particularly at risk with these products since ingesting only a small amount of hand sanitizer may be lethal in a young child.
• Products labeled with harmful or poisonous ingredients, such as methanol.”

The above data comes straight from the FDA and their exact plan to limit the amount of hand sanitizers that contain methanol that get distributed to the public. That being said, the FDA is aware of the problem and are doing everything they can to make sure only safe hand sanitizers are in the market. They advise to keep an eye on their “Do-Not-Buy List” and to call them or your health providers with any questions you may have. 

    The FDA has a mission to get the methanol problem under control to keep the consumers safe and healthy. This mission shows that the FDA has the consumers best interest and is doing everything in their power to stop the production and purchasing of hand sanitizer that contains methanol. As the FDA is working extremely hard they are taking several core values into consideration as well. These values include: customer safety, integrity, and respect. As mentioned before the FDA is taken all these actions just to keep customers/consumers safe. They show integrity to the public by providing the “Do-Not-Buy” list. The FDA is aware of methanol coming from certain companies so, as they get that information they are reporting it out right away. With that, the FDA is also following the value of respect. They are telling the public honesty information out of respect for the consumers. The employees of the FDA sure wouldn’t want to use dangerous sanitizer themselves so they are making it known to the public. 

            To ensure ethical productivity and monitoring of ethics in the future to prevent this problem from reoccurring the FDA should push new training programs on all the companies that find themselves on the DO-NOT-BUY list. The new training should include extra supervisions of the production of the hand sanitizer and testing procedures that will show if there is a harmful chemical within said hand sanitizer. When it comes to the hiring, firing, and promotion system, the managers will really need to evaluate the employees. Hire those who are willing to give 110% and want to keep the public as safe as possible. Fire those who seem to be doing a careless job. With the promotions, give employees an incentive to strive to do their best work possible.

            As companies are recollecting themselves the FDA should promote or market an updated DO-NOT-BUY list. On top of that, said company should take it upon themselves to promote the new and improved hand sanitizer that will be coming to the market. These companies have to get back on their feet and regain consumer trust. In order to do that, they will need to be completely honest and open about their product. By taking these actions the companies will not only regain consumer trust but also begin to improve profits and productivity levels. If the FDA pushes the core values and new training system the consumers will start to be willing to buy products from those companies again. As the honesty of the companies grow, so will the loyalty of the consumers.

 

 

References

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “FDA Updates on Hand Sanitizers Consumers Should Not Use.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 2020, www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-hand-sanitizers-consumers-should-not-use. 

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Medek Company. “Medek, LLC. Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of M Hand Sanitizer Due to Potential Presence of Methanol (Wood Alcohol) and Subpotent Ethanol Levels.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, Sept. 2020, www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/medek-llc-issues-voluntary-nationwide-recall-m-hand-sanitizer-due-potential-presence-methanol-wood. 

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Resource Recovery & Trading, LLC.,Issues Nationwide Recall of Hand Sanitizer Due to Potential Presence of Methanol (Wood Alcohol) and Subpotency Ethyl Alcohol Company Announcement.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, July 2020, www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/resource-recovery-trading-llcissues-nationwide-recall-hand-sanitizer-due-potential-presence-methanol.

Commissioner, Office of the. “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Reiterates Warning About Dangerous Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers Containing Methanol, Takes Additional Action to Address Concerning Products.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, Sept. 2020, www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-reiterates-warning-about-dangerous-alcohol-based-hand-sanitizers.  

FDA. Hand Sanitizer Lawsuit - Kazan Law, 2020,  www.handsanitizerattorneys.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA-rj9BRCAARIsANB_4AD-JoJPX3lTvtmdPQlMY7qWlhq6Uy1wt5DHDFc6QA79wGjn_Uq1EbcaAkInEALw_wcB. 

Impelli, Matthew. “Hand Sanitizer Recall Expanded to Include Another Brand Due to Possible Presence of Methanol.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 4 Sept. 2020, www.newsweek.com/hand-sanitizer-recall-expanded-include-another-brand-due-possible-presence-methanol-1529687. 

 

 

 

 

San Diego Padres: Trading and Health Record Controversy (2016)

San Diego Padres: Trading and Health Record Controversy (2016)

Baseball has had a presence in the city of San Diego California since 1936 when 17 year old Ted Williams first took the field for the San Diego Padres of the Pacific Coast League. In 1969, the Padres became the last of four teams to be included in the Major League Baseball expansion to 24 franchises. Things haven't exactly panned out for the Padres since entering the league. In 1973 the team was sold to Joseph Danzansky and they were set to become the Washington Stars. Lawsuits complicated the sale and McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc bought the team. Despite remaining in southern California, the Padres lack any real success with a lackluster record of 3540-4110, and 5 playoff appearances and the constant threat of relocation looming over the franchise.

In recent years these struggles have continued as the team tries to put out a roster capable of competing for a chance at the playoffs. With the signing of former Texas Ranger Assistant General Manager A.J. Preller in 2015 it had looked like the Padres fortunes were about to finally change. During the 2014-2015 offseason the Padres made several blockbuster trades and signings to bring in All-Star and future talents among the likes of Matt Kemp, Derek Norris, Melvin & Justin Upton, Wil Myers, Will Middlebrooks, Craig Kimbrel, and James Shields. 2015 was the year the Padres were poised to win the hotly contested NL West division and compete for a deep playoff run. 2015 was an utter disaster with the Padres placing 4th in the division at 74-88

Beginning in the 2015-2016 offseason, Preller and the Padres began a massive fire sale to sell off all valuable talent in hopes to stockpile young prospects for the future. Since the beginning of this rebuild, Preller has either traded away or allowed all players acquired during the 2014-2015 to leave the team with the exception of Wil Myers. As the fire sale continued into the 2016 regular season, Preller began instructing Padres medical personnel to keep separate medical records for team purposes and for the league’s database. By altering medical records for the league database, the Padres were able to trade players with existing injuries to other teams without sacrificing what the Padres received in return.

During the summer of 2016 the Padres were able to complete several trades involving previously injured players in exchange for highly sought prospects. On July 29th the Padres traded starting pitcher Andrew Cashner, and relief pitchers Tayron Guerrero and Colin Rea to the Miami Marlins for Jarred Cosart, Josh Naylor, Luis Castillo and Carter Capps. The following day Colin Rea was pulled during the 4th inning of his Marlin’s debut due to an elbow issue that was revealed to have been a pre-existing injury. August 1st Rea was sent back to the Padres for the recently acquired Luis Castillo and placed on the 15-day disabled list. After visiting with elbow specialist Dr. James Andrews, it was revealed Rea had torn his Ulnar Collateral Ligament and would be out for the rest of the 2016 season as well as the 2017 season.

The more controversial trade however occurred two weeks prior to the trade on the 29th when the Padres sent 2016 All-Star starting pitcher Drew Pomeranz to the Boston Red Sox in exchange for top pitching prospect Anderson Espinosa. Soon after arriving in Boston it was discovered Pomeranz had signs of inflammation in his forearm which drastically diminished his performance after the trade-deadline. Once Major League Baseball caught wind of what was going on, an investigation was launched which found that Preller and the Padres guilty of forging medical documents for the league database. On November 15, 2016 Major League Baseball suspended A.J. Preller for 30 days without pay for tampering with medical files specifically related to the Drew Pomeranz trade.

Baseball teams like the Padres have fewer stakeholders than a clothing company for example, however, their stakeholders have a much more direct impact on the teams and how well they perform as a business. Within the league itself, the stakeholders would typically include the Padres, the teams that traded with the Padre’s, the respective management and owners, as well as the player involved. However, given the circumstances and how often all 30 Major League Baseball teams interact with one another, this controversy may have an impact on all future interactions with the Padres organization. Outside of the league there are several key stakeholders that are affected by the Padres actions. Obviously the fans of all teams involved in these transactions are effected by the Padre’s actions, however, team sponsors, local broadcasting networks, and local radio stations all have stakes within a team and can serve to gain or lose based on a scandal like this.

Individualism is an ethical theory that places the businesses best interests first regardless of other stakeholders. Under this perspective a business should aim to maximize profits for the owners of the business within lawful restrictions. Coming in to the 2016 regular season, the Padres had a payroll of $99,284,500 according to Business Insider (The Gap Between the Haves and the Have-Nots in MLB is as Big as Ever).  As of March 13th 2017, CBS Sports reports that the Padres have a payroll of around $75,000,000 due to several transactions made during the 2016 season (Padres are Spending More than Half Their Payroll on Players that No Longer Play For Them. The trades criticized by the league in this controversy were responsible for clearing about $10,000,000 of the $25,000,000 cut  by the Padres in the last year. As a result of the Padres' numerous transactions in order to sell off as many valuable players as possible, the team's success on the field suffered significantly. However, despite a poor 68-94 last place finish, the team ranked 15th in attendance according to ESPN (2016 MLB Attendance). With a total attendance of 2,351,426, the Padre's only saw a decrease of about 100,000 despite having a much weaker team. For the time being, the Padres did increase the team's income during the 2016 season despite the transactions making their actions ethical under an individualist perspective.

James Shield walks off field after 2 innings during
his White Sox debut

According to Utilitarianism, an action must prioritize the happiness of all conscious beings in order for said action to be deemed ethical. Under this perspective, the Padre's transactions during the 2016 season would only be recognized as ethical if all teams, fans, players, television stations and all other stakeholders involved gained some sort of happiness or satisfaction as a result. Due to the Padres' actions this just isn't the case as many stakeholder's suffered as a result of the trades most especially the teams that were wronged. In a joint statement issued by the Red Sox, Marlins, White Sox who had traded with the Padres earlier in the season for Padres starting pitcher James Shields, and an anonymous fourth team “(we are) enraged by what (we) perceived to be strategic deception: veiling medical information that could have been pivotal in trade discussions” (Fox Sports). As a direct result of their actions the Padres' performance suffered as a result of the trades and further upset fans as well as the Padres broadcasting network due to low ratings. In a September report by Forbes, Fox Sports San Diego, the Padres' broadcasting network, saw a 36% drop in rating from 4.13 to 2.65 during the 2016 season (Here Are the 2016 MLB Prime Time Television Ratings For Each Team). Clearly the Padres' did little to prioritize the happiness of stakeholders outside of their organization during the 2016 season and as a result their actions cannot be deemed ethical under a utilitarian perspective.

Established on the ideas and values of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, Kantianism requires that actions to be based on rationality, honesty and respect for the individual. Kant believed that all decisions should be made based on these values or that decision cannot be ethical. Kantianism strongly emphasizes the importance of not treating people or businesses as just a means to an end. In this circumstance, this is exactly what the Padres did throughout the course of the 2016 season. Because of the disaster which was the 2015 season, the Padres had to rebuild their team by trading away players with large contracts or allowing star players to leave in free agency. Rebuilds are a common occurrence in Major League Baseball, however it is the way in which they conducted their rebuild which violates the beliefs under the Kantian perspective. By doctoring the teams medical records, the team shows a blatant lack of honesty and respect towards stakeholders. The Padres took advantage of other teams by keeping private records to convince teams to trade away valuable prospects in return for injured players. By treating not only other teams, but players as well as a means to an end, the Padres violated the key tenants of Kantianism during their scandal.

Virtue Theory is an ethical perspective that is based on the essential virtues that Greek philosopher Aristotle felt people should embody. Aristotle believed that these virtues; honesty, compassion, justice and prudence to name a few, were key in benefitting societal wellbeing and that anything contrary to that was unethical. Only one of these virtues were displayed by either AJ Preller or his medical staff in the case of the transactions made by the San Diego Padres during the 2016 season. In order for the Padres to comply with the basic characteristics of Virtue Theory, they would have to exhibit these virtues in some way shape or form. By being truthful in their conducting of medical records and having transparency with their trade partners about the health of their players the Padres would be displaying honesty. Instead the Padres were dishonest by doctoring their player medical files for the leagues purposes and took advantage of other teams. The Padres could've shown some compassion to their injured players by taking the necessary precautions to maintain their long term health with rehabilitation. Instead, Preller and the Padres decided to trade these players quite literally across the country and have their new teams worry about their health. Rather than being prudent with their injured players, the Padres were negligent. Preller and the Padres allowed Drew Pomeranz to play in the 2016 MLB All Star Game with elbow inflammation in order to drive up his asking price just two days before trading him to Boston. The one virtue that the Padres did display during the 2016 season was justice. When Colin Rea was removed from his Marlins debut with elbow discomfort, the Padres reversed the trade that sent him to the Marlins and returned the prospect received in compensation. When Drew Pomeranz was diagnosed with elbow inflammation by Red Sox medical staff, the Padres offered the Red Sox the opportunity to return Pomeranz to San Diego, to which the Red Sox declined.

Under every perspective with the exception of individualism, the San Diego Padres failed to act in a way that can be deemed ethical. Their complete and utter disregard for the players, the teams, the fans, the owners, and all other stakeholders involved in this controversy is what make this situation unethical.

Works Cited

Bahr, Chris. "Padres GM Suspended 30 Days by MLB in Medical Scandal." FOX Sports. N.p., 15 Nov. 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/the-padres-are-reportedly-facing-mlb-discipline-in-medical-scandal-091516>.

Brown, Maury. "Here Are The 2016 MLB Prime Time Television Ratings For Each Team." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 Oct. 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/09/28/here-are-the-2016-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/#3edf5a484ce9>.

Cassavell, AJ. "Injured Pitcher Colin Rea Returns to Padres." Major League Baseball. N.p., 01 Aug. 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <http://m.mlb.com/news/article/193008810/injured-pitcher-colin-rea-returns-to-padres/>.

ESPN. "2016 MLB Attendance." ESPN. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 17.

Frisaro, Joe. "Marlins Trade for Andrew Cashner, Colin Rea." Major League Baseball. N.p., 29 July 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <http://m.mlb.com/news/article/192405904/marlins-trade-for-andrew-cashner-colin-rea/>.

Gaines, Cork. "The Gap between the Haves and the Have-nots in MLB Is as Big as Ever." Business Insider. Business Insider, 04 Apr. 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <http://www.businessinsider.com/major-league-baseball-opening-day-payrolls-2016-4>.

Perry @daynperry, Dayn. "Padres Are Spending More than Half Their Payroll on Players Who Don't Play for Them." CBSSports.com. N.p., 14 Mar. 2017. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/padres-are-spending-more-than-half-their-payroll-on-players-who-dont-play-for-them/>.

Russell, Jake. "San Diego Padres Were Once so Close to Moving to D.C. They Had Uniforms and Everything." The Washington Post. WP Company, 16 June 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/06/16/the-time-the-san-diego-padres-were-this-close-to-moving-to-d-c/?utm_term=.6a277fb243c0>.

"San Diego Padres Team History & Encyclopedia." Baseball-Reference.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SDP/>.

Smith, Christopher. "Boston Red Sox Trade with Padres for Drew Pomeranz: San Diego 'hid Players' Medical Information' (report)." Masslive.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. <http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2016/09/boston_red_sox_drew_pomeranz_t.html>.