An Exploration of Justice in the Context of Ethical Guidelines

Abstract

An appellate court in Missouri has decided to uphold a 2.1 billion dollar judgment against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) over the presence of asbestos in their baby powder, despite being unable to directly link the asbestos to the development of ovarian cancer in J&J consumers. By exploring the meaning of ‘justice,’ this paper will defend the court’s decision that J&J owes its consumers punitive damages for the physical and emotional distress caused by exposure to asbestos. This paper will draw comparisons between the case in question and the Anderson v WR. Grace and Beatrice Foods case from A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, to reinforce the ways ethics should be considered in litigation involving public health risks.