Pharmaceutical company and a cure for cancer Essay

The research is focused on pharmaceutical company and a cure for cancer. The drug can cure thousands of people, but it is not universal. Not every patient can be cured with this drug; moreover, approximately 7% of patients die from adverse allergic reaction on this drug. The objective of the paper is to collect some arguments in favor of leaving the drug on the market or removing it from the market based on a utilitarian law, a moral rights law, and a justice rule.
On the base of utilitarian law the drug should be leaved on the market. As it known, the main idea of utilitarian law is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. T understand the greatest good in this issue it is necessary to review the statistics. Nowadays there is no absolutely effective cancer therapy. Around 13% of all deaths in the world were caused by cancer in 2008 (WTO, 2009). Dependently on the type of cancer the mortality can reach 30-35%. The risk of death from cancer is higher in the poor countries. The popular therapies in cancer treatment, like surgery and radiation therapy, also have side effects and negative consequences. Thus, from the utilitarian law point of view the importance of new effective drug overweighs the risk of death from adverse allergic reaction.
The advice from the point of view of moral rights law is more complex. Contemporary discussions regarding the moral rights are usually related to the issue of copyright. However, the case has nothing common with intellectual property. Thus, it deals mostly with the moral decision regarding this drug. Analyzing the concept of natural rights, also known as unalienable rights, it is possible to develop the argument in support of leaving the drug on the market. The reason is that every individual has unalienable right to make a choice, especially when it deals with his or her own life. Patient should know about the possible risk and understand the danger of allergic reaction. However, it is not sufficient reason to remove the drug from market.
As for justice rule, it is necessary to mention that there are certain ethical principles that should rule in the business as well in any other human activity. However, the selfishness always prevents following the ethics. The Golden rule “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” can be implied in this case. Thus, leaving the drug on the market the company will face cases of deaths because of the drug. 7% of patients are rather high percent for a numerous lawsuits against the company, huge penalties and bankruptcy of the company. Thus, it is rather risky idea to leave the cure on the market from the justice rule point of view. It would be better to remove it from market before it is improved and the percent of allergic reaction
Analyzing arguments above it is possible to advice the CEO of this company to remove the cure from the market. Utilitarian law and moral rules law can argue in support of leaving the cure on the market. Unfortunately, these laws are not dominating in contemporary society. It would be reasonable to make the decision on the base of justice rule, because it is the closest rule to contemporary jurisprudential system.
Conclusion
Despite the supportive arguments from the utilitarian and moral rights point of view it would be better to remove the drug from the market.