Reply to this discussion post One of Eglitis' points that I believe is important is Point 4, “the existence of global poverty helps support Western medical advances.” (Macionis and Benokraitis 2010:225.) This is because advancements in medicine are important, but at what cost? As long as there is lack of FDA oversight in trials conducted outside of the United States the attraction to be able to conduct clinical trials quickly with little regulations is attractive to high powered pharmaceutical companies wanting to “speed new drugs to the market place- were they will be sold to mainly to patients in wealthy countries.” (Macionis and Benokraitis 2010:226.) Additionally the subjects in impoverished countries generally lack the educational background to fully understand informed consent including risks. In these countries where there is a lack of adequate medical care, subjects may be eager to enroll in a clinical trial because they might view it as an opportunity to receive unavailable care. A counter argument to this point may be that diseases that call for urgent treatment with a yet to be approved medication demand a speed of trial conduction that may not be possible in the United States because of expense and regulatory rigor. Similarly, Point 2 states that, “ The existence of global poverty benefits Western companies and shareholders in the form of increased profit margins.” (Macionis and Benokraitis 2010:225.) In an effort to maximize the profit margins in the Western world, large corporations are seen to seek out cheaper labor options outside of the United States. Workers in poverty stricken countries are willing to work for much less money and less benefits than individuals in the western world. This is even more noticeable when looking at the difference in wages between female and male workers. I find it difficult to justify a counterpoint for these points as they are unacceptable. The only counterpoint that I can think of is that if these workers were more fairly compensated or if there existed a human resource regulatory oversight these practices would be more ethical.
Reply to this discussion post
One of Eglitis' points that I believe is important is Point 4, “the existence of global poverty helps support Western medical advances.” (Macionis and Benokraitis 2010:225.) This is because advancements in medicine are important, but at what cost? As long as there is lack of FDA oversight in trials conducted outside of the United States the attraction to be able to conduct clinical trials quickly with little regulations is attractive to high powered pharmaceutical companies wanting to “speed new drugs to the market place- were they will be sold to mainly to patients in wealthy countries.” (Macionis and Benokraitis 2010:226.) Additionally the subjects in impoverished countries generally lack the educational background to fully understand informed consent including risks. In these countries where there is a lack of adequate medical care, subjects may be eager to enroll in a clinical trial because they might view it as an opportunity to receive unavailable care. A counter argument to this point may be that diseases that call for urgent treatment with a yet to be approved medication demand a speed of trial conduction that may not be possible in the United States because of expense and regulatory rigor.
Similarly, Point 2 states that, “ The existence of global poverty benefits Western companies and shareholders in the form of increased profit margins.” (Macionis and Benokraitis 2010:225.) In an effort to maximize the profit margins in the Western world, large corporations are seen to seek out cheaper labor options outside of the United States. Workers in poverty stricken countries are willing to work for much less money and less benefits than individuals in the western world. This is even more noticeable when looking at the difference in wages between female and male workers. I find it difficult to justify a counterpoint for these points as they are unacceptable. The only counterpoint that I can think of is that if these workers were more fairly compensated or if there existed a human resource regulatory oversight these practices would be more ethical.
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
