Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Given the uncertain nature of litigation generally, the Company is not able in all cases to estimate the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the litigation to which the Company is a party. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the Company establishes accruals to the extent probable future losses are estimable (in the case of environmental matters, without considering possible third-party recoveries). In view of the uncertainties discussed below, the Company could incur charges in excess of any currently established accruals and, to the extent available, liability insurance. In the opinion of management, any such future charges, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and consolidated cash flows. In June 2007, Retractable Technologies, Inc. (“RTI”) filed a complaint against the Company under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-250, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) alleging that the BD Integra™ syringes infringe patents licensed exclusively to RTI. In its complaint, RTI also alleged that the Company engaged in false advertising with respect to certain of the Company’s safety-engineered products in violation of the Lanham Act; acted to exclude RTI from various product markets and to maintain its market share through, among other things, exclusionary contracts in violation of state and federal antitrust laws; and engaged in unfair competition. In January 2008, the Court severed the patent and non-patent claims into separate cases, and stayed the non-patent claims during the pendency of the patent claims at the trial court level. On April 1, 2008, RTI filed a complaint against BD under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. and Thomas J. Shaw v. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-141, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) alleging that the BD Integra™ syringes infringe another patent licensed exclusively to RTI. On August 29, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the patent cases. RTI was subsequently awarded $5 million in damages at a jury trial with respect to the patent claims, which has been paid, and the patent cases are now concluded. On September 19, 2013, a jury returned a verdict against BD with respect to RTI’s Lanham Act claim and claim for attempted monopolization based on deception in the safety syringe market. The jury awarded RTI $113.5 million for its attempted monopolization claim (which would be trebled under the antitrust statute). The jury’s verdict rejected RTI’s monopolization claims in the markets for safety syringes, conventional syringes and safety IV catheters; its attempted monopolization claims in the markets for conventional syringes and safety IV catheters; and its claims for contractual restraint of trade and exclusive dealing in the markets for safety syringes, conventional syringes and safety IV catheters. In connection with the verdict, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $341 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. With respect to RTI's requested injunction relief, in November 2014, the Court granted RTI’s request that BD be ordered to issue certain corrective statements regarding its advertising and enjoined from making certain advertising claims. The Court denied RTI’s request for injunctive relief relating to BD’s contracting practices and BD’s safety syringe advertising, finding that RTI failed to prove that BD’s contracting practices violated the antitrust laws or that BD’s safety syringe advertising is false. On January 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part BD’s motion for a stay of the injunction. The Court held that, pending appeal, BD would not be required to send the corrective advertising notices to end-user customers, but only to employees, distributors and Group Purchasing Organizations. On January 15, 2015, the Court entered its Final Judgment in the case ordering that RTI recovers $341 million for its attempted monopolization claim and $12 million for attorneys’ fees, and awarded pre and post-judgment interest and costs. On February 3, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied BD’s motion for a stay of the injunction pending the final appeal, and BD thereafter complied with the Court’s order. On April 23, 2015, the Court granted BD’s motion to eliminate the award of pre-judgment interest, and entered a new Final Judgment. BD thereafter appealed to the Court of Appeals challenging the entirety of the Final Judgment. On December 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the judgment as to RTI’s attempted monopolization claim and rendered judgment on that claim in favor of BD. As a result, the Company reversed $336 million of reserves associated with this judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Lanham Act liability, and remanded the case to the district court to consider whether and if so how much profit should be disgorged by BD on that claim. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the injunction ordered by the Court. On January 31, 2017, RTI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On July 17, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority, trading as Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia Health System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care purchasers of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges that BD monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters through contracts, theft of technology, false advertising, acquisitions, and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble damages but does not specify the amount of alleged damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted on January 29, 2016. On September 23, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the judgment to allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, and plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs thereafter voluntarily dismissed their appeal, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the case on November 21, 2016. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of the above-mentioned suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters. The Company is also involved both as a plaintiff and a defendant in other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company is a potentially responsible party to a number of federal administrative proceedings in the United States brought under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as “Superfund,” and similar state laws. The affected sites are in varying stages of development. In some instances, the remedy has been completed, while in others, environmental studies are underway or commencing. For several sites, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be jointly or severally liable to pay all cleanup costs.

Contingencies

Given the uncertain nature of litigation generally, the Company is not able in all cases to estimate the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the litigation to which the Company is a party. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the Company establishes accruals to the extent probable future losses are estimable (in the case of environmental matters, without considering possible third-party recoveries). In view of the uncertainties discussed below, the Company could incur charges in excess of any currently established accruals and, to the extent available, liability insurance. In the opinion of management, any such future charges, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and consolidated cash flows.

In June 2007, Retractable Technologies, Inc. (“RTI”) filed a complaint against the Company under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-250, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) alleging that the BD Integra™ syringes infringe patents licensed exclusively to RTI. In its complaint, RTI also alleged that the Company engaged in false advertising with respect to certain of the Company’s safety-engineered products in violation of the Lanham Act; acted to exclude RTI from various product markets and to maintain its market share through, among other things, exclusionary contracts in violation of state and federal antitrust laws; and engaged in unfair competition. In January 2008, the Court severed the patent and non-patent claims into separate cases, and stayed the non-patent claims during the pendency of the patent claims at the trial court level. On April 1, 2008, RTI filed a complaint against BD under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. and Thomas J. Shaw v. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-141, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) alleging that the BD Integra™ syringes infringe another patent licensed exclusively to RTI. On August 29, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the patent cases. RTI was subsequently awarded $5 million in damages at a jury trial with respect to the patent claims, which has been paid, and the patent cases are now concluded.

On September 19, 2013, a jury returned a verdict against BD with respect to RTI’s Lanham Act claim and claim for attempted monopolization based on deception in the safety syringe market. The jury awarded RTI $113.5 million for its attempted monopolization claim (which would be trebled under the antitrust statute). The jury’s verdict rejected RTI’s monopolization claims in the markets for safety syringes, conventional syringes and safety IV catheters; its attempted monopolization claims in the markets for conventional syringes and safety IV catheters; and its claims for contractual restraint of trade and exclusive dealing in the markets for safety syringes, conventional syringes and safety IV catheters. In connection with the verdict, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $341 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. With respect to RTI's requested injunction relief, in November 2014, the Court granted RTI’s request that BD be ordered to issue certain corrective statements regarding its advertising and enjoined from making certain advertising claims. The Court denied RTI’s request for injunctive relief relating to BD’s contracting practices and BD’s safety syringe advertising, finding that RTI failed to prove that BD’s contracting practices violated the antitrust laws or that BD’s safety syringe advertising is false. On January 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part BD’s motion for a stay of the injunction. The Court held that, pending appeal, BD would not be required to send the corrective advertising notices to end-user customers, but only to employees, distributors and Group Purchasing Organizations. On January 15, 2015, the Court entered its Final Judgment in the case ordering that RTI recovers $341 million for its attempted monopolization claim and $12 million for attorneys’ fees, and awarded pre and post-judgment interest and costs. On February 3, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied BD’s motion for a stay of the injunction pending the final appeal, and BD thereafter complied with the Court’s order. On April 23, 2015, the Court granted BD’s motion to eliminate the award of pre-judgment interest, and entered a new Final Judgment. BD thereafter appealed to the Court of Appeals challenging the entirety of the Final Judgment. On December 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the judgment as to RTI’s attempted monopolization claim and rendered judgment on that claim in favor of BD. As a result, the Company reversed $336 million of reserves associated with this judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Lanham Act liability, and remanded the case to the district court to consider whether and if so how much profit should be disgorged by BD on that claim. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the injunction ordered by the Court. On January 31, 2017, RTI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

On July 17, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority, trading as Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia Health System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care purchasers of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges that BD monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters through contracts, theft of technology, false advertising, acquisitions, and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble damages but does not specify the amount of alleged damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted on January 29, 2016. On September 23, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the judgment to allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, and plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs thereafter voluntarily dismissed their appeal, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the case on November 21, 2016.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of the above-mentioned suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters.

The Company is also involved both as a plaintiff and a defendant in other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business.

The Company is a potentially responsible party to a number of federal administrative proceedings in the United States brought under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as “Superfund,” and similar state laws. The affected sites are in varying stages of development. In some instances, the remedy has been completed, while in others, environmental studies are underway or commencing. For several sites, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be jointly or severally liable to pay all cleanup costs.