[nkrisc]

To be fair to the developers and designers: how exactly would they know that the inclusion of "opioid prescription" as an item in that list would help fuel a an opioid epidemic? Hindsight is 20/20, but would you expect them at the time to think, "If we include this as an option in this list, it will contribute to a nationwide epidemic of opioid abuse and countless deaths"? Honestly, I think it's a stretch, especially if they weren't aware of a deal with opioid manufacturers being the reason for it in the first place.

It would be one thing of some product manager came to them and said, "since a large opioid manufacturer has paid us a lot of money, we're going to implement this feature in order to increase unnecessary opioid prescriptions" but I would be surprised if that happened. "We're going to implement this feature to help doctors pick the right treatment for a patient's pain."

Someone here is evil and deserves what's coming, but I don't know that it necessarily would have been readily obvious to those implementing it. In fact, it would likely have been preferable to conceal the true nature of it lest any of them have any moral qualms or objections.

I'm not trying to negate your question, either. I think it's a good question to ask and consider.

[mehlmao]

This "feature" was added to the software in 2016, well into the epidemic.

[jfarmer]

> If we include this as an option in this list, it will contribute to a nationwide epidemic of opioid abuse and countless deaths?

Give. me. a. break!

At a minimum they should ask, "What are the potential downsides? How extreme are they? How can we determine how likely those potential downsides are?"

I'd expect every junior PM to ask _that_ series of questions about any product decision in any market.

There's a reason clinical trials have protocols for early termination. Not understanding that early termination is a thing when building a social app is one thing, but they're building EMR software!

[mywittyname]

Must be nice to work in a place where a developer has complete influence through the entire process. Every place I've worked has been so large that a single developer can only work on a very minute segment of the code unless they are very senior. I'm guessing the bulk of developers work at large companies and have experiences much closer to mine.

This tool was probably built by several teams of developers working somewhat isolated. Someone built a system that allows for treatments to be suggested for certain ailments, another team did the UI, another testing, then there was probably completely separate team of people in charge of determining what to suggest for as treatments. This treatment team was very likely not staffed by developers at all.

Which of these groups are responsible here? Do I need to be pushing back with every dialog option I create with data from a database? Ask my PO, "what are we going to do to ensure that nobody puts dangerous options in the db?" I'm being serious, if you're blaming the developers for this, then you should make suggestions that are appropriate for the real environment most of us work in; that is: we're often a very small cog in a very large machine with no view of the big picture.

[ryandrake]

I’ve never been a big fan of the “I don’t know what my software does—I just move JSON around” excuse. As professionals, we need to be aware of the intended use of the things we make, and that includes weighing the ethical implications.

We also need a professional ethical vow with teeth like the Hippocratic Oath that allows tech professionals to push back against demands to write unethical software, but that’s a topic for another thread.

[nkrisc]

I don't disagree. But my point was that it's not always clear what the implications are. Sometimes it's more obvious, sometime it's not. We also don't know what the "intended" use of this feature that was presented to the people who made it was. They could very well have been deceived as to it's true nature.

This could very easily have been presented and sold to a team in a way that does not make it immediately seem like something evil.

[mcguire]

The bottom line is that developers and designers are not professionals, who would have to accept responsibility for their products. It is in the best interests of developers and designers not to be professionals and not to accept responsibility in cases like this.

A standard argument for this state of affairs is that it is in the best interest of society to allow developers and designers this freedom from responsibility, because of all the shiny new products. In which case you have to accept incidents like this---you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.