Discuss one point that you agree with and why using a critical level of analysis

Question

Discuss one point that you agree with and why using a critical level of analysis. on the following text.

Opioid is a drug which creates an addiction as well as many other being sold by big pharmacies such as Purdue, Johnson and Johnson. Vice-Chairman' s possible misconduct will not really affect that much the purchasing decisions of consumers as there is still a need on the customers' side. “Janssen has acted appropriately, responsibly and in the best interests of patients regarding our opioid pain medications, which are FDA-approved and carry FDA-mandated warnings about the known risks of the medications on every product label,” said the company, referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." The problem is that in relationship with last week's discussion there is not verification which can corroborate this statement. From my point of view, there is an obvious absence of ethics when Pharmacists takes advantage of the consumers that are willing to pay a big quantity of money for their addiction when they are not aware of how is it affecting them. Same as oil, cancer pills and AIDS cures between others, I am sure there are other possible solutions and better ways to help people but it is not as profitable for these companies. “A lot of states are looking for money to subsidize substance-abuse programs. As they do that and as previous states reach settlements, there is blood in the water at this point,” . However, is good that persons like Mr. DeWine tries to battle the unethical acts of these big pharmacies to try show people what the reality is and at least make them doubt is opioid or other drugs are really worth it to take. As I learnt in Business Communication, companies who develop a code of ethics not only guarantees profitability but promotes customer loyalty and employee retention.

Explanation / Answer

I agree with the point that pharmacies promoting and selling drugs which create addiction is completely unethical. We can discuss this issue from the theoretical premises of ethics. Let us first consider the Utilitarian approach. Under this approach, the morality of an action will be decided based on its benefits vs. costs to all the affected parties. In other words, if the action increases the overall total happiness, it becomes moral. Here, selling drugs like opioid is creating a lot of revenue which is benefiting few parties such the company owners, management, employees, and, in fact, the government also as it is acquiring tax out of the increased revenue. But on the costs side of this action, citizens' health is deteriorating leading to an excessive cost of healthcare, side effects, allocation of excess budget for healthcare. The costs side is thus much more than the benefit side and the action reduces the overall happiness. It is thus immoral.

Consider Kant's Deontological perspectives as well. As per Kant, the morality of any action is decided based on the intention that produces the action and not by the outcome produced. So, even if the benefits of the selling drugs like opioid is huge in terms of dollar value, the intention is morbid. It based on acquiring dollars at the cost of the poor health of the fellow citizens. So, as per Deontology, the action is far distant from the maxims or gold standards of morality as suggested by Kant. The action is thus immoral.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse D
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.