the drug dilemma

In contrast to other places in Europe, Canada, and other places around the world, the United States is the world leader in charging its customers exorbitant prices for drugs. The pharmaceutical industry is the most lucrative field of the economy, and what makes matters worse is that the cost of new medicines being developed has been steadily rising, not only for cancer but for other ailments as well. Aside from the fact that experimental medications are exorbitantly priced, subject testing is conducted in impoverished countries where the research has little long-term benefit. Thus, the U.S. drug companies are unethical because of being profit-driven, charging exorbitantly, and exploiting the poor countries in the name of drug testing.

The high price of prescription drugs in the U.S. reflects the practices of an unfair and competitive sector (Shiell, 2015). It seems that the government is not keen to regulate the sector as it is done in other states. The market is unfair and leaves consumers at the knees of the pharmaceutical firms.

Based on the nature of the product of Pharmaceutical firms, it is acknowledged that they have some ethical responsibilities, which other corporations lack. The precise reason for theexistence of drug companies is to assist those in need. Whether the medical need is to cure an ailment or make life greater, if these types of needs were non-existent, the pharmaceutical company would similarly not exist. According to Ferrell and Fraedrich(2015), corporate citizenship refers to the level to which organizations show social responsibility for attaining economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities bestowed upon them by their shareholders. The objective of any business is to improve the living standards and quality of life within the populations in which they serve while still guaranteeing that stakeholders make profits. However, the drug manufacturing companies are not good corporate citizens due to not adhering to their ethical responsibilities. According to chapter 5 of Shiell (2015), profit maximization becomes unethical when expensesare not catered for and when the buyer lacks the knowledge and expertise of the seller.Most corporates strive to be good corporate citizens. However, the pharmaceutical company has taken advantage of themarket on numerous occasions and has not demonstrated responsibility as expected.

Some of the big drug companies are guilty of price gouging and charging unfairly for their products. Furthermore, cancer drugs have risen by approximately 10 per cent every year since 1995. If it is an issue of the difference of affording a given medication or going without, it should be legally permissible to go to other markets comprising Mexico or Canada because this is how America competes. However, in line with deontology, Americans should be disallowed to obtain drugs from outside the state (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). Just because the drugs are less costly does not suggest that it is right. If the intention of the firms were to be beneficial to these subjects with their drug, then it would be morally justified. Nonetheless, this is clearly not their motive;they would have otherwise maintained the provision of the drug after the tests.

Drug companies are motivated by several benefits they accrue by testing overseas. Arguably, the main motivation for the test is a profit motive. The element of profit making makes the companies source theirtesting procedures in regions with lesser impediments to testing, more eager or bigger pools of target test subjects, and minimal oversight. There is a possibility that the test subjects are exploited in the process. The subjects contribute on their volition but economic and social pressures compel them to participate. Probably many uninformed people contribute to the tests. Furthermore, the patients do not accrue long-lasting benefits fromthese tests. Judging from a utilitarian perspective of ethics, it is arguable that as long as the drug testing serves the greater good, the tests by drug companies are morally justified(Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). The companies would serve better and generate greater good by offering the produced drugs to the states in which they were tested.

Drug companies do not necessarily have a legal obligation to avail new drugs to patients that were involved in their development. Nonetheless, this would be unethical. Most people who contribute in drug development have little or no money and already risked their lives with the test. Therefore, they should be rewarded with the produced drug.

It is unethical for drug companies to refuse to sell a valuable drug such as ranolazine in a poor country other areas would prove to be more economically viable. Grounded on deontology ethics, basing drug distribution on moneymaking is unethical because the latter is not the right reason in comparison to assisting the needy.

The pharmaceutical drugs have a moral and social obligation for assisting the needy whether it is a life-saving drug or a non-life-saving drug such as ranozaline. Nonetheless, even whether thesepharmaceutical firms sold theprescription drugs at a quite lower rate or even opted to offer the drugs to the countries where they were made, one cannot say that the act was purely done for the right purpose, which is helping those in need. Instead, the act of self-centeredness by the firm is what makes it unethical.

To conclude, the U.S. drug companies are acting unethically because of being profit driven and exploiting the poor countries motivated by several benefits they accrue by testing overseas. The high price of prescription drugs in the country mirrors the practices of an unfair and competitive sector.Arguably, the main motivation for the test is profit motive while the consumers are exploited. The pharmaceutical drugs companies need toobserve their moral and social obligation if they are acting in the best interest of patients.

References

Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making& cases. Ontario: Nelson Education.

Shiell, T. (2015). Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases, by William H. Shaw. Teaching Ethics, 15(2), 379-381.