Ethics Dilemma A village of people has been hard-hit by the HIV/Aids virus, and people are beginning to die in ever-increasing numbers. Many children are also infected. Those who are not face the prospect of growing up without their parents, in a household where an aging grandmother may be the only source of economic support. The government of these villagers gives a sluggish response at best to the rising toll in human life and suffering.
Some officials continue to deny the disease exists. A major pharmaceutical manufactures a critical drug that would help to stave off the ravages of the disease in these villagers. Unfortunately, neither the villagers nor their government can afford even the significantly reduced price that the company is willing to charge. Neighboring third world governments have begun to manufacture their own drugs to combat this pandemic disease within their borders, but the pharmaceutical company’s international patent rights prevent these nations from selling their HIV/Aids drugs outside their country’s borders. Dilemma Should the major pharmaceutical which holds the international patent for a critical drug in the HIV/Aids cocktail continue to fight for observance of its patent rights in countries where the governments and those infected with the virus cannot afford to pay for the drug? Considerations 1. The pharmaceutical (company) has expended millions, perhaps a billion or more, in the research and development of the drug.
The Essay on Is drug addiction a disease or a choice
Is drug addiction a disease or a choice? Introduction Have you in any way contemplated whether drug addiction is a disease or a choice? This topic has been very controversial and has brought about many debates to ascertain the whole thing. Many researchers have taken a stand that being a drug addict is completely a disease that only can be cured by taking drugs. On other side, there ...
The company expected that its patent would enable it to recoup its capital outlay and realize a profit, which is why the business exists. 2. To allow the international community to ignore the patent could spell disaster for the company, as a major percentage of its income is generated by the sale of this drug. 3.
If international patents become threatened in this manner, it could significantly impair future initiatives to conduct research and development for new drugs. This would make the risk against recovering expenses and turning a profit on the resultant products too great for business prudence. 4. If the company acquiesces to demands from the international community and Third World countries to further decrease prices for its HIV drug, the company could face potential backlash from its customers in more economically stable countries. These customers could feel they are being unfairly treated when charged the much higher prices.
5. A majority of these customers could also be expected to eventually defect to one of the cheaper sources for purchase of their drugs, thereby cutting further into the company’s profits from this product. (For the team) From all the media information we ” ve received about this situation, one immediately thinks this is occurring in Africa. This dilemma outlines the situation facing Dongguan Village in China. These people were infected when many of them sold their blood to unlicensed blood-bank operators using unsanitary equipment in the mid-’90’s.
Many grandmothers couldn’t do so because they were keeping house while husbands and children (moms and dads) were working / visiting the blood banks. It might be interesting to see if the discussion takes a different tack once that fact is presented.
