Ethical Question

[Civil War Man]

This is just something I was wondering, and I'd thought I'd throw it out to you all and see what you think.

Take a government or a large multinational corporation (location is unimportant). It owns various buildings that store dangerous substances in it (for instance, the company might help develop chemical weapons for the government or something). Suppose that, through some accident, these dangerous substances were released into the environment, and contaminating a nearby town. This accident is not the result of malice (i.e., not a result of terrorism or sabotage), but of some failure in the system, whether it be a mechanical failure or incompetence on the part of one of the workers. For some reason, the accident can not be immediately attributed to the entity responsible.

Obviously, the most ethical thing to do would be for the responsible party to come clean, pay for the medical treatment of those affected, and work to make sure it does not happen again. However, which of these two situations would be the least ethical thing to do?

Situation 1: Cover it up. Pretend the accident did not happen. If the accident is traced by to the company, use whatever means available to make sure the general public does not find out about it. As for the people affected, fuck 'em.

Situation 2: Come clean, work to make sure it does not happen again, and offer to provide treatment to those affected. However, also use this opportunity for some live testing of a drug the company was developing to counteract the negative effects of the substance that was released. Since it was only being recently developed, the drug has not been tested nearly enough to be accepted by organizations like the FDA (substitute similar group for your country). The treatment may work, it may not work, or it might only work for a certain number of people. Side effects of the drug might vary.
Best case scenario: Drug works for everybody with little or no side effects. Worst case scenario: It doesn't work for anyone, and produced a number of negative side effects. It is most likely that it will fall somewhere between one of the two extremes, but there is a chance that either would happen.

[Civil War Man]

Shit. This should be in SLAM. How the Hell did this end up in vs?

[DrkHelmet]

I'm not sure what this has to do with Star Wars vs Star Trek but...

LEAST ethical? Probably the least ethical would be to cover it up, as, ethically, at least they were trying to help with the experimental drug.

[wolveraptor]

Not really. The experimental drug testing is still a wholely selfish motive, rather than an attempt at curing the people. Still, the drugs have a chance of helping the townspeople, unlike the coverup, and unless the company's scientists are wholely incompetant, it should do something. However, that answers the question of "Which action would have the best possible effect?" not "Which is least ethical?"

[Elheru Aran]

Hasn't this happened with the United Carbide disaster in Bhopal?

[Civil War Man]

Hasn't this happened with the United Carbide disaster in Bhopal?

Something vaguely similar. The OP situation is partially based off of that.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously, the least ethical of those two options is to cover it up. If you use the cleanup and medical treatment of affected people as an opportunity for live medical drug testing, there's nothing unethical about that as long as you inform them of what's happening and give them a choice about it. All medical drugs eventually go through live human tests anyway.

If one says that you can't tell people about the experimental drugs, then that's a self-contradictory position; to "come clean" about what you're doing would obviously preclude creating a new secret.

[Vicious]

Like DW said, as long as you inform the people about the experimental nature of the drug and give them a choice as to whether they take it or not, I see nothing wrong with offering it. Now, if you give them the drug without their permission or without informing them of the nature of the drug, that changes the equation.

One interesting twist is if the accident rendered all the victims in a coma. Since you can't ask their consent, would you have to go to their nearest relatives or would you have, essentially, carte blanche to implement your drug testing?

I'd say that in order to remain within ethical grounds, you would have to ask their nearest relatives, and that performing unauthorized tests on comatose patients would, if anything be even worse than doing it to conscious patients.