CEO Martin Shkreli has recently come under fire after increasing the price of Daraprim, a drug that many people rely on, 5,000%, from $13.50 per pill to $750. Despite the incredible backlash from critics around the country, Shkreli believes that he was justified in doing so saying that it was to raise money to be able to create other pharmaceutical drugs. The question now becomes, can this 5,000% price increase be ethically justified? Through the use of Utilitarianism, I will argue that this price increase is not ethically justified. Daraprim is a drug that fights toxoplasmosis; it is a food-borne disease and a common complication of cancer and AIDS. It is also used in conjunction with other medications in the treatment of acute malaria. It works by targeting and killing the Toxoplasma parasite that attacks people with weakened immune systems. Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company in which Martin Shkreli is CEO, has had exclusive rights The principal belief of Deontology is that the consequences do not govern whether or not an action taken is morally permissible. What this means is, as long as the action taken is morally permissible, then that is all that matters, the goal is to always act in a morally permissible way regardless of the consequences. Morally permissible has to do with whether the action taken was right or wrong. Martin Shkreli claimed that he raised the price of Daraprim to be able to raise capital so that he could use it to fund research on the development of new drugs. Due to the fact that this was a morally permissible action to him, he believed that it was the right thing to do, it does not matter that the result of this action would cause many people to not be able to afford their medication and could possibly cause deaths because it was considered the right action to take to him. Therefore, the increase in price wouldn’t be considered
Deontology theory defines an ethical action as one that adheres to a set of rules and duties. PharmaCARE’s actions are unethical by way of this moral compass because the firm has failed to perform in accordance with one very important duty, the duty to safeguard human dignity and basic human rights. Paying $1 a day to its workers and not providing them with even the most basic of amenities is a gross violation of the firm’s obligation to safeguard human rights, which in itself is a morally required behavior and applicable almost universally. PharmaCARE is not treating the Colberians like the treat their executives, nor are they treating the community there as they treat the communities in the
Many businesses that achieve great success become greedy and want more. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Turing, have been overpricing life-saving drugs since they’ve been discovered. Martin Shkreli, the CEO of the company that raised the price of the H.I.V medicine, was arrested because of wrongdoings involving his former hedge fund and a pharmaceutical company he previously headed. He has been charged with conspiracy to commit security fraud, wire fraud, and using his previous company to cover personal debts. U.S. Attorney Robert Capers says, “As alleged in the indictment, Shkreli essentially ran his companies like a Ponzi scheme, where he used each subsequent company to pay off the defrauded investors in the prior company” (Shkreli).
Yu, Winnie and Joel Hay. 1999. “Drug Patents and Prices: Can we Achieve Better Outcomes?” Measuring the Prices of Medical Treatments. Pages 27-28.
Main Issue In 2000, Rich Kender, Vice President of Financial Evaluation and Analysis at Merck & Company was discussing the opportunity of investing in licensing, manufacturing and marketing of Davanrik, a drug originally developed to treat depression by LAB Pharmaceuticals. LAB proposed to sell the rights of all the future profits made from the successful launch of Davanrik at the cost of an initial fee, royalty payments and additional payments as the drug completed each stage of the approval process. Merck & Company's organizational goal is to constantly refresh its drug development portfolio and reach as many customers as possible during the patented period. So there was not only the potential of financial gain or quantitative aspect of the offer, but also the qualitative value which will be added by getting better positioning in the risky pharmaceutical industry.
3Walker, Hugh: Market Power and Price levels in the Ethical Drug Industry; Indiana University Press, 1971, P 25.
The last of these was the merger between Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham, which formed the current company of GlaxoSmithKline. GlaxoSmithKline’s business is to discover effective medicines and healthcare products for people throughout the world and create shareholder value. They are one of the world’s leading producers of prescription medicines, vaccines and consumer healthcare products (Toiletries, Drinks). These products include SEROXAT/PAXIL, AUGMENTIN, WELLBUTRIN and ZOTRAN, all of which are pharmaceutical products. AQUAFRESH, LUCOZADE, NIQUITIN CQ and SENSODYNE, these are known as consumer healthcare products.
Matthew Herper a journalists for Forbes, had lunch with one of today’s most infamous people on September 24, 2015. Martin Shkreli raised the price of a drug that treats HIV positive patients by over five thousand percent. The drug went from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill. Herper states that Martin is a very intelligent man but acts as a antisocial sociopath. After raising the price of the drug overnight, he became the face of capitalistic greed. ("Forbes Welcome," n.d.)
Shkreli, he found the Turing Pharmaceutical biotechnology firm to developed medications to treat serious diseases with limited options. The two medications he developed called Daraprim and Vecamly for hypertension disease. “We are dedicated to help patients” with no guarantee if the patients will get healed. According to Mr. Shkreli, he increased the price because is an extraordinary medication and only for elderly patients. Mr. Shkreli told to ABC News that “We agreed to lower the price on Daraprim that is affordable and allow the company to make small profit. “We think these changes will be welcomed”. He set up a business plan for the out-of-patients: to get license, needs an approval to produce a generic name, and the cost is expensive; in order to make a profit by not selling his own medications on the market. On November 2015, he was a CEO in Kalobios Pharmaceuticals biotechnology firm; a major stakeholder in San Francisco and continued to be a CEO in Turing Pharmaceutical biotechnology firm. On December 2015, Mr. Shkreli was arrested and the Kalobios Pharmaceutical firm was terminated him and filed a
...rm debate. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have lobbied against legislation to allow drugs from other nations into the United States. Prescription prices in America have increased beyond affordability and are hindering the health of the nation. Americans are forced to bear the burden of research costs and are being turned into deviants and white-collar criminals. By ridding the monopoly of the pharmaceutical companies and evening the prescription prices throughout the globe, the drastic increase in prescription prices can be prevented. Even just passing legislation that in fact allows Americans to decide their own fate when it comes to their prescription medications, would have a drastic impact on pharmaceutical pricing. After all isn't it the point of the government to stand up for its citizens and care more for them, not its business.
Criminal fines and relinquishment of benefits totaled $485 million, including a fine of $85 million identifying with a comparable case including the congestive heart failure drug Natrecor (Verschoor). Implementation to major changes that Johnson & Johnson need to make regarding their business operations with pharmaceutical affiliates was also a part of the settlement agreement. Other yearly specific actions were required as a part of the corporate-integrity agreement (Verschoor). These changes are necessary, even if they are mandatory, because Johnson & Johnson has made a global name for itself in considering the well being of humans, and this case shows that there wasn’t a proper ethical demonstration towards the
It is the profits rather than the need of the world that drives the market, as Cahill points out. She laments that while in the 1960-1970 's theologic bioethicists influenced the field of bioethics, nowadays the ethical discourse involving Christian narrative gets" thinner and thinner," shifting away toward more secular and liberal views. As theologians are welcomed to partake in the ethical debates, their voices and opinions are rarely considered in policy making. Such situation causes the current trend amongst health care institutions,medical-surgical companies, and research labs, to focus on financial gain rather than ways to deliver health care to those who needed it the most. It is the consumers with the most "buying power" that have at their disposal the latest medical treatment, equipment, technologies, and medications while millions around the world lack the most basics of needs, such as clean water, food, shelter, education as well as the basic health care. Cahill fears that medical companies seeking profits will neglect or stop altogether to produce medications that are bringing low profits. Medications that are necessary to treat prevalent in the third- world countries or if you prefer the developing countries diseases, such as Dysentery, Cholera, Malaria, Rabies, Typhoid Fever, Yellow Fever, even warms, to name a
Merck was one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Merck was about to lose patent protection of two of its best selling drugs, which had been a significant part of their $2 billion annual sales. Merck began putting millions of dollars into research (up to $1 billion) and within three years, Merck was able to discover four powerful medications. Profits weren’t all that Merck cared about; Merck’s founder believed that "medicine is for people. It is not for the profits." • He also believed that following the “medicine is for people” philosophy would lead to profits and had yet to fail.• River Blindness is caused by parasitic worms, which can be found in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.• These places are developing, so many citizens are poor. • The worm larvae can enter the body through fly bites, with some people getting thousands a day. • Worms can cause grotesque growths, but the major problem lies in reproduction when millions of progeny are released in the system. •The resulting itching is so intense the infected have committed suicide. • Eventually, the larvae may cause blindness. • Two existing drugs could kill the parasite, but have serious, potentially fatal, side effects. • The only safe combative measure available was insecticides that eventually lose potency with immunity of the flies. • The average drug takes $200 million in research and 12 years time to produce. • In order for companies to stay in business (and ease human pain), they must make complex decisions about which drugs offer the most promise. • Investing time/money into drugs for rare diseases is risky (because the pool of recipients is small). • There are enough people with river blindness ...
In summary, Burroughs Wellcome Company found itself under relentless pressure from government and activists to decrease the price of Retrovir. The firm had to decide whether to choose between increasing profit margin or changing the price for the ethical and social well-being of potential HIV and AIDS patients.
Shkreli believes that this his decision is not only ethical but a decision that needed to happen. Shkreli argues that selling the drug at $13.50 puts Turing Pharmaceuticals at a loss, and that a price increase is necessary for Turing Pharmaceuticals to operate. Shkreli believes that if Turing Pharmaceuticals is profitable, it can use the money to do more research to develop more drugs that will help more people. In fact, in a new video, Shkreli claims that Turing Pharmaceuticals has created a drug that deals with a degenerative brain disease. He claims that only 300 people suffer from this disease and that if he didn’t raise the price on Daraprim, he would not have been able to produce the new drug. After
It is morally permissible to do an illegal act if the action is morally right and good. An action could be morally right and illegal at the same time, when it represents the lesser of two evils, or when the intentions of the person performing it are noble and have for goal to achieve his duty. An action can be morally right, but still illegal because in a situation where there is no good option, the lesser of two evils is the morally best option to do, even if it is illegal (Thomson 39). For example, in Dallas Buyers Club, Ron Woodroof acted rightly by choosing the lesser of two evils: sell illegal drugs to help AIDS patients feel better and live longer, instead of letting them suffer and die (Dallas Buyers Club). If he would have chosen to obey the law, a great number of AIDS patient would have suffered more and died of their illness, and he would have been guilty of not helping them according to the Harming by Omission Thesis (HOT) and the Equivalence of Evil Thesis (EET) (Mieth 17). These thesis affirm that omitting to help someone in need would be as bad as hurting the person directly. Thus, Woodroof acted in a morally permissible way even if he broke the law because he chose the lesser of two evils (Matheny 16). Also, someone can act justly e...