It’s clear that, even though Holmes had a good intent, she acted in an unethical manner, prioritizing the ends, thinking it would eventually justify the means

 

Gustavo Borges Arruda

 

Elizabeth Anne Holmes. The question of who she is and who she was doesn’t have a simple answer. In 2004, she was founding a promising company with a revolutionary idea. In 2014, she was the CEO and 45% owner of it, valued at more than 9 billion dollars and the cover for the Forbes and Fortune magazines. In 2018, she was the ex-CEO and founder of the then dissolved company, Theranos. In 2022, she was accused of 11 crimes and considered guilty of 4 of them: all counts of fraud. It’s clear that Theranos wasn’t the usual “Silicon Valley company”, since the idea behind it, a machine that could run hundreds of tests with a few drops of blood, was never anything but that: an idea. Elizabeth tricked patients with fake tests and fooled investors into putting up almost a billion dollars during its lifetime.

It’s a recurring question whether Holmes lost her ideology for greed after so much deceiving. What people tend to believe, though, is that it all started with good intent. Afterall, her product would have done so much good, had it come to be. That led to Holmes’s rationalization of her lies, creating a logical reason to justify her unethical acts. So, yes, Elizabeth might have had good things in mind during the development of her secret box. But, does that justify everything she did to achieve it? She frequently told the press, public and investors everything was according to plan. That, however, could not be further from the truth. The “little magic box” called Edison was, to put it simply, a disaster. It was impossible to make it work in such a tiny space and with only a few drops of blood. For it to work, according to former employees, it needed at least 2 sacks of blood and a much bigger space. Elizabeth omitted this last part from the public, to say the least.

Despite all this, Holmes’ actions can be considered ethical if seen through the lens of a concept called Utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism that determines right or wrong based solely on outcomes. Then, according to it, Elizabeth Holmes acted ethically by lying, deceiving and manipulating people based on the fact that, ultimately, she meant good and Edison would help the world.

According to Dan Ariely, a prominent behavioral economist, “It started off as something small, like one lie, and turned into this whole crazy situation” — In ethics, this is called Incrementalism or Slippery Slope. In other words, no one goes from ethical to unethical in the blink of an eye. This process starts with something small, which leads you to doing something slightly worse, lowering your bar every time, until you completely lose your morality. Holmes’s actions clearly fall into that category. As Elizabeth was pushed by the press as the next Steve Jobs, she met the crushing expectation for her to realize her vision, be successful and disrupt the healthcare market. This pressure might have been part of the process that made she lose her inner moral compass.

There are some more ethical principles that appear in this case. The Moral Hazard, when you hide bad information about a product you are selling in order to trick the buyer, is very clearly present, seeing that the company didn’t inform people about the inefficiency of the Edison machine, even during the period in which they tested patients. Furthermore, Elizabeth was said to: “not wanting scientific insight, she surrounded herself with men that were seduced by charm”— interviewee from The Inventor: Out for Blood in the Silicon Valley documentary, which can be identified as 2 things: Confirmation Bias and Strategic Ignorance. The 1st is when you search only for information that confirms your thesis. The 2nd is when you intentionally avoid information that can unseat your plans or beliefs. Both can be identified in that scenario, since she was intentionally avoiding people that might not back her idea up while being accompanied only by those who are on her side.

Lastly, this whole case can be used as an ethics guide for beginners on what not to do when you face big expectations, high pressure and the seemingly inevitability of failure. Thus, even if you face them, you should be honest and open to being wrong, to recognizing there’s room for improvement. It’s clear that, even though Holmes had a good intent, she acted in an unethical manner, prioritizing the ends, thinking it would eventually justify the means. What became the root of the problem, though, is that this “ethical end” never came to be, with the “unethical means” remaining just that: unethical.

---

Fontes:

Detalhes do caso Theranos:

https://canaltech.com.br/startup/caso-theranos-entenda-a-ascensao-e-queda-de-uma-promessa-da-biotecnologia-207450/

 

Definição de alguns conceitos éticos:

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/tutors-problems/Public-Relations/49148838-Whatare-the-major-differences-between-the-incrementalistparadigm/#:~: text=The%20incrementalist%20paradigm%20focuses%20on,analysis%20and%20logical%20decision%20making