Pharmaceutical Industry and Society

Sustainability in Pharmaceuticals Industry Ethical Pricing in the Pharmaceutical Industry The reality of medicine if the modern era is that resources must be allocated to help support the development of new pharmaceutical and in turn, there must also be a way to compensate those who devote their resources to help cure some of the preventable diseases that plague the modern age.

The moral issue at stake here is distributive justice, and Rawls' framework is especially germane since it underlines the material benefits everyone deserves as Kantian persons and the need for an egalitarian approach for the distribution of society's essential commodities such as health care; the concern for distributive justice should be a critical factor in the equation of variables used to set prices for pharmaceuticals (Spinello, 1992).

For example, the question of how humanity delivers on a social scale that advances that humanity makes is among one of the essential questions in framing what a sustainable future might look like. There are also pragmatic considerations that must be made. For example, how should intellectual properties be weighed in instances where the protection of intellectual capital will almost certainly result in human lives. Such questions address the complexities that exist in the compensation structures for modern healthcare innovations and these questions are far from having clear answers.

This analysis will try to identify some of the core considerations that are inherent in these concerns and frame the ethical considerations that intrinsic in these lines of reasoning. Ethical Issues in Pharmaceuticals There are multiple systems, and perspectives, in play at all points in the development of new pharmaceuticals. The stakeholder set is wide and diverse and consists of investors who are interested in their personal gains, as well as patients (stakeholders) who are interested in their physical, or mental, well-being.

Balancing the different goals of different sets of stakeholders represents a tactical, but also moral, dilemma in many circumstances. For example, it is likely that the level of innovation would be somewhat stifled if there wasn't the potential of massive rewards, but at the same time, what are the obligations to society in general. There are obviously trade-offs at every point in the possible spectrum of risk, reward, and the public good.

John Rawls who proposes that all economic goods and services should be distributed roughly equally except for in the cases in which unequal distribution works to advantage the entire society as well. For example, some level of inequality could in fact play a motivating role in leading individuals towards hard work and innovation. Furthermore, Rawls argues from a Kantian position and diverges from other egalitarian theories by making provision for inequality when they enhance the position of the least advantaged members of society.

If having inequality turns out to advantage the society through increased productive efforts, then Rawls would be all for it. Rawls contribution was to set the limits for society in his moral model by stripping whatever knowledge you might have about your place in society. Rawls made the argument for the mask of invisibility which roughly proposed that you should design and society and its systems so that it is fair for all members regardless of their exact position in society.

However, at the same time, every example of utopian efforts that has ever been attempted has been a monumental failure when they have been put into practice (Freeden 2008). Critics of Rawls argue that his theory sacrifices personal freedoms and liberties which will make his positions unable to be put into practice in the real world. In regards to medication pricing however, personal liberties would likely be vastly overrated by most people.

For example, if you had to choose between dying and paying unfair rates for medications, then there is virtually no choice. This extreme version of monopoly power puts the pharmaceutical industry in an unfair bargaining position, one that has severe implications for the other party. Therefore, the model of distributive justice as a moral issue and one that focuses on the public good is likely the model that would fit the sustainable pricing and distribution of potentially lifesaving drugs the best.

The need for an egalitarian approach for the distribution of society's essential commodities such as health care and the concern for distributive justice should be a critical factor in the equation of variables used to set prices for pharmaceuticals (Spinello, 1992). In fact, most of the developed world has already implemented such pricing and some form of universal care exists throughout the world. The United States is unique in the sense that it still uses.