Please read the Case Study on page 73 in your text - Working for Eli Lilly & Company. Answer the following questions. (Please cut and paste these questions directly into your document.) 1.
Discuss Eli Lilly's practice from the perspectives of utilitarianism and rights. It seems that the staff at Eli Lilly feels that by using homeless alcoholics as test subjects they are doing the greatest good for the lowest cost. They assert that they are doing the homeless a favor by giving them money and a place to eat and sleep. It would seem that they may be using a utilitarianism way of thinking for their selection process, but I do not agree that by helping the homeless people for a few short months is in any way compared to the harm that they could be doing to their bodies with their drug trial. In my opinion the good does not outweigh the bad, and the lives of the test subjects are worth a lot more than a few months’ room and board, and $4,500. If they did more to help these people like put them into a safe place that they can continue to recover from their addictions after the trial is over then maybe I would agree that they were at least helping them get their lives back on track.
In your judgment, is the policy of using homeless alcoholics for test subjects morally appropriate? Support your answer. It is difficult to express my personal opinion on the use of homeless alcoholics for test subjects. I’m sure that the test subjects are eager to have a warm bed, food, and food medical care. The fact that they will spend the allotted amount of time for testing without alcohol is also an improvement to their lives. However, it is not appropriate for Eli Lilly to recruit these people just because they are willing to do whatever they can just for a small sum of money and a place to sleep. The alleged “informed-consent form” does not seem to have informed the test subjects of the type of drugs they are taking or the possible side effects. The article makes no mention...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document