Question 1 : Explain how utilitarianism might provide a defense for Roche and how a rights-based ethic might instead condemn Roche’s drug trials in China. Which of these two approaches is stronger or more reasonable? Explain the reasons for your answer. Answer 1:
Utilitarianism is as a view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society. A utilitarian would argue that Roche was respecting the Chinese laws by first testing the drugs on Chinese patients. One could argue that prohibiting the research that Roche was performing could inhibit future Chinese patients from receiving a drug that could be necessary to sustain life. Roche’s Cell Cept had a beneficial plan for the Chinese society in creating a drug to help sustain life or fight the disease for their specific ethnicity. As a utilitarian, finding a resolution for the good is the most ethical and just decision. The utilitarian should argue that Roche had no control over how the organs were harvested. Knowing or not knowing where the organs were originating from wouldn’t be as important, as long as their end goal of saving lives would be completed. Rights are defined as individual entitlements to freedom of choice and well-being This may lead a rights based ethic to say that the prisoners from which the organs were being harvested could not be accepted because they were being held against their free will. An ethical person may also argue that there is no way to know under what conditions the organs were being removed from such prisoners. However since rights are up to the individual, it cannot be determined if the individual is recently dead. The conditions of this study are questionable since there is no way of knowing if the prisoner declined to be a part of this study. More so, if the organs are being sold
for a profit instead of research, then this decision would be defined unethical by moral standards. Now,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document