Philosopher John McCall argues that making producers liable for harms not caused by negligence is not unfair because it would be just as unfair to hold consumers liable for them. In effect, the consumer's interests always trump the producer's. In cases of unfavorable outcomes to patients of a surgeon, however, or clients of an attorney, the surgeon or attorney would not likely be held liable for those outcomes unless it could be shown that they had violated the professional standards governing their practices, that they were negligent. Why doesn't McCall's rationale apply to surgeons and attorneys? Can't producers claim that they followed every reasonable method for designing and manufacturing their products so that they would be reliable and safe for consumers, and that like surgeons and attorneys, they met their professional standards?

Suppose that an organization specializing in purchasing medical supplies for hospitals accepts payments from suppliers who want to insure that the organization will buy their products instead of their competitors'. Would the organization be able to defend accepting these payments by arguing that they hold down costs to the hospitals which in turn can pass these price savings on to HMO's and patients, thereby lowering the overall cost of medical care?

Need a Hint?

Many people are allergic to milk and wheat products that can cause serious harm to them if ingested in any form. Producers of food products often label the milk used in their products as "whey" and the wheat, "semolina." These labels may confuse customers who are not aware of what they mean. If the producers of the food products were to refuse to change their labels, would they be liable for any harm that would come to people with these allergies who used these products? Is the consumer rather than the producer responsible for being sure that he or she fully understands all the information listed on product labels?