M3 Original Assignment - Pharmaceutical Companies and Corporate Ethics
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
SUNY Empire State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3010
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by oOoSinSeaRoOo
1
Velazquez
1.
Are drug companies that test experimental drugs in foreign countries acting ethically?
When drug companies conduct clinical trials in foreign countries with potentially weaker
consumer protections and product liability laws, ethical concerns develop, particularly
regarding exploitation and informed consent. In an article for “In These Times”, an online
news blog, author Terry Allen wrote: “
Informed consent is the backbone of ethical trials, but
patient protection loses meaning when subjects are desperately sick and poor and have no other
treatment options. Consent standards vary by country, rules for testing on children can be less
stringent than in the United States, and language, educational and cultural differences can be
used to mask dangers.” (2010)
From a utilitarian perspective, which focuses on maximizing overall utility or happiness, such
practices might seem unethical. Utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences of actions. In this
case, the potential benefits of testing drugs in foreign countries, such as lower costs and faster
approval processes, might be outweighed by the risks to participants who might not fully
understand the experimental nature of the drugs or lack adequate legal recourse in case of
adverse effects. This goes against every Utilitarian principal as there is little to no utility or
maximization of happiness for society as a whole. (Shaw and Barry, pg. 60-66, 2016),
2.
Is American industry at too much risk of lawsuits to remain competitive? Should
companies trying to develop drugs be given immunity from lawsuits?
Providing immunity from lawsuits to companies developing drugs raises ethical dilemmas,
especially concerning justice and fairness. From a Kantian perspective, which prioritizes
universalizability and treating individuals as ends in themselves, granting immunity could be
seen as unjust. Kantian ethics, emphasizes the importance of moral principles and duties.
From a Kantian perspective, even if the act of developing life-saving drugs can be seen in a
positive light, the motive behind the act, profitability, does not derive from a moral duty to
benefit mankind and so cannot be considered to have moral worth. (Shaw and Barry, pg. 66-
72, 2016)
Granting immunity could allow companies to prioritize profits over the well-being of
individuals, undermining trust in the pharmaceutical industry and potentially causing harm to
consumers. For example, immunizing drug companies from lawsuits might discourage them from
ensuring the safety and efficacy of their products, leading to a situation where companies
prioritize market competitiveness over public health. Moreover, it might exacerbate existing
power imbalances between corporations and consumers, limiting the latter's ability to seek
redress for harm caused by negligent or unethical practices.
2
Velazquez
3.
Is it ethical for companies to decline to sell a useful drug because they can make more
money marketing drugs that are more widely needed? Is it ethical for companies to
decline to sell a useful drug in a foreign country because they can make more money
marketing the drug elsewhere? Do companies have an ethical obligation to make drugs
available in poor countries at little or no cost?
The ethical considerations surrounding drug distribution and pricing involve complex issues
of distributive justice and beneficence. From a virtue ethics perspective, emphasizing
character traits and moral virtues, refusing to sell a useful drug in certain markets solely for
the maximization of profit could be considered unethical. Virtue ethics focuses on developing
virtuous character traits and acting in accordance with moral principles.
For example, Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision to increase the price of Daraprim by over
5,000% sparked outrage and ethical debates. While the company argued that the price hike
was necessary for research and development, critics questioned the morality of prioritizing
profits over access to life-saving medication, particularly for vulnerable populations (BBC,
2015).
Denying access to essential drugs in poorer countries raises concerns about global health
equity and the responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies. Companies have a moral
obligation to contribute to improving global health outcomes, which may entail making drugs
available at affordable prices or even for free in regions with limited access to healthcare
resources.
“…given their considerable power and resources, large corporations seem better able to
promote the common good than most individuals or small businesses.”
How corporations are to promote the common good cannot be answered very specifically; this
will depend on the type of firm and its particular circumstances. proponents of broadening
corporate responsibility would agree, though, that the first step is for corporations to expand
their moral horizons and make ethical conduct a prior- ity. how to do this? At least four
actions seem called for. corporations should:
1.
Acknowledge the importance, even necessity, of conducting business morally. 2.
Make a real effort to encourage their members to take moral responsibilities seriously. 3.
End their defensiveness in the face of public discussion and criticism.
4.
Recognize the pluralistic nature of the social system of which they are a part.” (Shaw & Barry, pg.221, 2016)
4.
The makers of EpiPen have raised the cost of a two-pack of this life-saving injection to
over $600. Should drug costs be controlled or regulated?
The excessive pricing of life-saving medications like the EpiPen accentuates the need for
ethical considerations regarding healthcare access and distributive justice. From a utilitarian’s
perspective, regulating drug costs could be justified if it leads to overall benefits for society.
3
Velazquez
For instance, the high cost of the EpiPen can result in individuals forgoing necessary
medication due to financial constraints, potentially leading to avoidable health complications
or even fatalities. Regulating drug costs could ensure that essential medications remain
accessible to those who need them, promoting public health and well-being.
The affordability of essential medications is crucial for promoting health equity and ensuring
that individuals have equal opportunities to lead healthy lives. High drug costs can
disproportionately affect marginalized communities, exacerbating existing health disparities.
Therefore, regulating drug costs aligns with principles of fairness and social justice, as it helps
mitigate the financial barriers to accessing life-saving treatments.
References:
Allen, T. (2010, April 6).
Offshoring Human Drug Trials
. In These Times. https://inthesetimes.com/article/offshoring-human-drug-trials
BBC. (2015, September 22).
US pharmaceutical company defends 5,000% price increase
. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34320413
Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2016). *Moral Issues in Business* (13th ed.). Cengage Learning
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help