Drug Control Discussion (ANSWERED)

QUESTION

Answer the following questions, drawing upon the assigned readings and resources and using specific examples from those readings and resources to illustrate and explain your thoughts. In answering these questions, please follow this format:

write out the question and then provide your response.
when you reference (name) a theory, cite your source using the APA in—text citation style.
you must cite sources and provide bibliographic references at the end of the assignment. The Shaw & Barry (2013) text is your primary resource in this course.

Assigned Questions

In recent years, it has become an increasingly popular practice for drug companies to perform their clinical testing of new drugs in foreign countries that might not have the consumer protections or product liability laws present in the United States. Please answer each of the following questions using a theory studied in Module 2 (utilitarian, libertarian, Rawls) specifically and thoroughly and using examples and facts from the readings and resources.

are drug companies that test experimental drugs in foreign countries acting ethically?
is American industry at too much risk of lawsuits to remain competitive? Should companies trying to develop drugs be given immunity from lawsuits?
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?
In the last year, the makers of EpiPen have raised the cost of a 2 pack of this life saving injection to over $600. Should drug costs be controlled or regulated?

Prepare to discuss the ethical considerations and support a position using one of the theories we studied in Module 2 specifically and thoroughly using facts and examples from the readings and resources.

Read the following articles

Porter, C. (2015, Feb 12). U.S. news: Vaccine debate hits home at school — California charter network has high rate of exemptions for measles shot; ‘A teachable moment’. Wall Street Journal.
Svan, J. (2016). DODEA mandates flu vaccine for all students starting this school year . Stars and Stripes. (Access the article by clicking on one of the full text links from the index page).
The Kennedy Potion; A crusade to ban vaccines is hazardous to your child’s health . (2014, July 25). The Washington Times (Washington, DC). (Access the article by clicking on one of the full text links from the index page).
Allen, T. J. (2010). Offshoring human drug trials . In These Times.
Chandna, H. (2016). Govt amends clinical trial procedures to lure drug makers . Hindustan Times.
Sullivan, T. (2012). Physician payment sunshine: Wall Street Journal and Forbes – Where is the evidence for patient benefit? Policy and Medicine.
Sanders, C. (2012, August 1). Stop drug trials in China: Matas . Winnipeg Free Press (Access the article by clicking on one of the full text links from the index page).
Fleck, A. (2015). The Diabetes drug that could be anti aging miracle . Newsweek, 165(23). (Access the article by clicking on one of the full text links from the index page).

ANSWER

Drug Control Discussion

Question 1

It is unethical for drug companies to test experimental drugs in foreign countries. According to the utilitarian theory, an ethical decision is that which brings happiness to all (Shaw & Barry, 2013, p. 61). Testing experimental drugs in foreign countries does not meet this criterion because some do not adhere to the principles of informed consent. They conduct tests on involuntary and vulnerable subjects, e.g., prisoners and poor people. Sanders (2012) reports that participants in developing countries only agree to the experiments to get access to free medication or financial benefits, making the practice exploitative.

Question 2

Libertarians believe that people should have the liberty to live as they wish, and government intervention interferes with this liberty (Shaw & Barry, 2013, p. 113). Therefore, if the government is making the lawsuit and its outcome is to restrict the individual freedom of the company, Libertarians would be against it. Giving drug companies immunity to lawsuits would curtail individuals’ right to sue. Libertarians believe everyone has the right to live as they wish. Because giving these companies immunity would prevent individual rights to sue, Libertarians would be against it.

I don’t think lawsuits prevent the American industry from becoming competitive. Lawsuits are filed when companies violate established drug regulations, which promotes industry accountability. Although lawsuits can delay a drug’s entrance into the market and negatively affect a company’s reputation, I’m skeptical that their impact is significant enough to affect a whole industry.

Question 3

`A utilitarian believes that a morally right action is that which provides happiness to all. Refusing to sell a drug to maximize profits would go against utilitarian thinking (Shaw & Barry, 2013, p. 61). The groups excluded from gaining access to the drug will suffer, and the happiness of those who gain access to the drugs will not offset their suffering, making it immoral.

`Kant’s moral reasoning also explains why refusing to sell drugs to maximize profits is immoral. One major supposition in Kant’s categorical imperative is “We must act based on goodwill rather than purely on self-interested motives that benefit ourselves at the expense of others” (Byars & Stanberry, 2018, p.51). The motive behind the marketing decision is to increase profits and not an act of goodwill. Also, while these companies enjoy their profits, many people needing the “hidden” drug will suffer. These outcomes make profit-seeking decisions immoral.

Are companies ethically obligated to make drugs available in poor countries at little or no cost?

Rawl’s distributive justice principle states that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (Shaw & Barry, 2013, p.122). This principle means that every member of society is entitled to equal freedoms: no one needs to have more or less than others. Loosely translated, the principle implies that people in poor countries should have equal drug access rights as rich nations.

This distributive justice principle echoes social responsibility theories. These theories posit that companies have legal, economic, and moral obligations to promote their interests and society’s welfare. Implicit in this theory is the idea that doing something for the greater good of society is moral. But what if availing the drugs at little or no cost negatively affects the company’s finances? Are they still ethically obligated to provide the drugs? Just because pharmaceutical companies produce life-saving drugs does not preclude or release other corporations from the obligation to save lives (Chang, 2006). Other corporations are equally obligated to save lives, and they can do so by financially empowering poor countries to afford the drugs. The pharmaceutical company does not need to be singled out and bear the costs of saving lives alone.

Question 4: Should drug costs be controlled or regulated?

It is inarguable that the high costs of drugs in the US need to be contained because they prevent vulnerable and poor people from accessing life-saving drugs. The high drug costs are immoral when analyzed from Rawls’s “conditions of fair equality of opportunity,” “greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged members of society,” and distributive justice principles.

However, I don’t think drug costs should be controlled or regulated. Various empirical studies have established that price regulation lowers R&D (research & development) investments and disincentivizes innovation (Patterson & Carroll, 2019). The authors indicate that when drug costs are controlled or regulated, pharmaceutical companies will opt to produce low-value products to cut production costs, preventing the development of high-value innovative products. Also, countries such as Denmark and South Korea do not have a price regulation system yet have one of the lowest drug prices in the world (Ben-Aharon et al., 2017).

Instead of controlling prices, the US should consider regulating monopolies and encouraging market competition, promoting transparency in the industry, and value-based pricing (VBP) strategy. Germany and Sweden use VBP, a price reflecting the drug’s incremental health benefit. The UK controls prices through indirect regulation, i.e., they control drug manufacturers’ profits. The US can adopt similar strategies instead of establishing cost-containment strategies, e.g., price caps.

References

Ben-Aharon, O., Shavit, O., & Magnezi, R. (2016). Does drug price-regulation affect healthcare expenditures? The European Journal of Health Economics, 18(7), 859–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0832-z

Byars, S., & Stanberry, K. (2018). Business ethics. OpenStax.

Lee, C. P. (2006). Who’s in the Business of Saving Lives? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 31(5), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310600912667

Patterson, J. A., & Carroll, N. V. (2019). Should the United States government regulate prescription prices? A critical review. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.06.010

Sanders, C. (2012, August 1). Stop drug trials in China. Winnipeg Free Press.

Stop drug trials in China: Matas

Shaw, W., & Barr, V. (2013). Moral Issues in Business (12^th ed.). Mason. Ohio. Cengage Learning.