Drug Dilemmas
Instructions
Read Case 5.2 on pp. 226- 228 - Drug Dilemmas. (Of course, you must read Chapter 5 prior to reading the case :)
Chapter 5 is very interesting in many respects. We need to consider whether corporations have social responsibilities and whether they have moral responsibilities in addition to making profits. You can see it's a difficult balance to attain.
Go to pages 202-203 to read about "Corporate Moral Agency" and the 2010 Supreme Court ruling giving corporations First Amendment rights. As you know, the First Amendment gives us, among other rights, the freedom of speech. Although corporations had limited “personhood” rights prior to the 2010 decision, now they have rights indistinguishable from individual citizens. Justice Roberts believes that “a corporation, just like an individual, has many diverse interests…indistinguishable from the individual who owns them.”
Now, perhaps we need to reevaluate the responsibilities that accompany the rights given to corporations. If a corporation has rights equal to a living human person, then what responsibilities accompany such important rights?
Here are some ideas we should be addressing in this forum:
1. Given the nature of their product, do pharmaceutical companies have ethical responsibilities that other corporations don't have? In your view, are the large U.S. drug companies good corporate citizens? (Hint: Remember Chapter 2 and the Kantian good will, do no harm, always promote good, categorical imperative, or the utilitarian view of the greatest good for everyone involved.)
2. Assess the motivations of drug companies that do their testing overseas. Do you think test subjects are being exploited? Under what circumstances, if any, are companies morally justified in testing overseas?
3. Finally, do drug companies have an obligation to make new drugs available to patients who were involved in their development in the U.S. or overseas?
No, I don’t feel that pharmaceutical
Read Case 5.2 on pp. 226- 228 - Drug Dilemmas. (Of course, you must read Chapter 5 prior to reading the case :)
Chapter 5 is very interesting in many respects. We need to consider whether corporations have social responsibilities and whether they have moral responsibilities in addition to making profits. You can see it's a difficult balance to attain.
Go to pages 202-203 to read about "Corporate Moral Agency" and the 2010 Supreme Court ruling giving corporations First Amendment rights. As you know, the First Amendment gives us, among other rights, the freedom of speech. Although corporations had limited “personhood” rights prior to the 2010 decision, now they have rights indistinguishable from individual citizens. Justice Roberts believes that “a corporation, just like an individual, has many diverse interests…indistinguishable from the individual who owns them.”
Now, perhaps we need to reevaluate the responsibilities that accompany the rights given to corporations. If a corporation has rights equal to a living human person, then what responsibilities accompany such important rights?
Here are some ideas we should be addressing in this forum:
1. Given the nature of their product, do pharmaceutical companies have ethical responsibilities that other corporations don't have? In your view, are the large U.S. drug companies good corporate citizens? (Hint: Remember Chapter 2 and the Kantian good will, do no harm, always promote good, categorical imperative, or the utilitarian view of the greatest good for everyone involved.)
2. Assess the motivations of drug companies that do their testing overseas. Do you think test subjects are being exploited? Under what circumstances, if any, are companies morally justified in testing overseas?
3. Finally, do drug companies have an obligation to make new drugs available to patients who were involved in their development in the U.S. or overseas?
No, I don’t feel that pharmaceutical