I cannot determine a subject from "see attachments"

Ethics Case Study -- Roche Clinical Trials in China

The Utilitarianism vs. Right-based Ethics Approach

From the strictly utilitarian perspective, continuing clinical trials in China is perfectly ethical because it provides such a valuable benefit to society. Even if it comes at the expense of the rights of a relatively few prisoners, the product of the research involved will improve the survival rates and quality of life of such large numbers of patients in the future that the value of that research to society is too great to give up. From the rights-based ethical perspective, continuing clinical trials in China is completely unethical, regardless of how much good might eventually come out of it. That is because it is ethically impermissible to ignore the fundamental rights, such as the right to personal autonomy over one's body and over one's physical remains. There is no justification for using the organs of anybody without permission.

The rights-based approach is much stronger and more reasonable, largely, because the utilitarian approach ignores the entire concept of individual rights. In principle, there is almost nothing that could not be justified by utilitarianism as long as the conduct at issue ultimately provides a benefit to more people than the number of people to whom it causes harm. Utilitarianism would justify the tyranny of the majority over the minority without any regard or recognition for any objective rights of individuals.

Objective Ethical Analysis

From a purely objective point-of-view, the only valid ethical objection to the Chinese trials is the fact that the Chinese legal system allows persecution of those who have not actually caused harm to anybody and (especially) because the evidence suggests that the decision to execute prisoners is a function of the motive to profit from harvesting their organs. However, if it were the case that the Chinese legal system protected the innocent and executed only those criminals who have been properly, duly, and fairly convicted and sentenced for crimes appropriately punished by execution, it is much harder to argue against the use of their organs to benefit society. From an objective point-of-view, once a person dies, it is wasteful not to use his or her organs to benefit living people. The attachment we have to the body after death is primarily a function of social learning and nonsensical superstition in the first place. Logically, it would be ethically permissible, to require that organs be harvested from all deceased persons once their families have had the opportunity to pay their respects.