qsn

Running Head: Business Ethics - Kant 1

Business Ethics – Kant 2

Business Ethics – Kant

Name

Course

Tutor

21st November 2018

Keefe (2017) brings the issue of OxyContin to light, from the family behind its introduction into the market hiding behind the curtain of being philanthropists, to the drug’s effects being downplayed, and finally to the drug becoming an addiction to those who needed it most for pain. The greatest issue in such a scenario as the Sackler family had taken on to benefit from, is the fact that they ended up, and have ended up gaining a lot from the pain, addiction, and death of people, from these people using the “solution” they brought forth to deal with the various issues. As opposed to viewing the drug as something that continues to hurt a lot of people, they view it as something that brings them a lot of wealth, and this is where the line is drawn. The most relevant ethical framework to match up with this issue of OxyContin is the one on “Rights and Duties”. It is, therefore, important to see that the issues that the Sackler family has brought onto the lives of many can no longer be viewed as rights, and duties, but should be viewed as the beginning of the end of the lives of people who ended up depending upon this medication.

Every individual, whether in the United States, or in any other country around the world, has certain rights that they ought to stand by. All individuals have rights, which help govern their lives. In the absence of these rights, then their lives may just easily be under the control of people who may want the worst for them. Purdue, under the leadership of the Sackler family, has the right to have its drugs allowed into the market following tests being conducted, as well as being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.). In such a case, all that can be done by the individuals as spectators is to take on the duty of respecting this right. In the same manner, Purdue got the drug, OxyContin, approved by the F.D.A., only for the drug to end up being of great pain, and causing negative effects on the individuals using it. The individuals, and organizations that might have been aware of misconduct during approval, or afterwards could only, at best, bring forth the claims, and await rulings to be made, or for the court to take charge.

Otherwise, the action would be viewed as wrong if indeed the company was prevented from having its product approved, after it had passed all the tests pertaining to its drug approval. However, in real sense, the company with the Sackler family in leadership, has in no way upheld the rights of the individuals in need of pain medication. It is one thing to have pain-relieving medication available following approval, and it is another thing, to falsify details about how the medication works, especially after not taking it through scientific tests. This is a good way of viewing how the family, despite putting on a philanthropic show, ends up gaining from misery of the same people that it tries to show off its ability to be philanthropic. It is no use producing a solution for pain if indeed, the solution will just end up bringing more pain to the person in need of relief. OxyContin has ended up hurting a lot of people through addiction, and death, as opposed to helping them through their most painful moments. The company, Purdue, has time and again, defended the drug by mentioning that the users are unaware of how best to use the drug, when it is to blame for not being dutiful to the same people who have the right to effective medication to treat their health issues (Forsberg, Shelley-Egan, Thorstensen, Landeweerd, & Hofmann, 2017).

Kant has made it clear that one’s duty to the moral law can best be described as goodwill, where this goodwill is made on the basis of a person’s commonsense, and ought to be the guide for their behavior. In this case, the idea behind rights and duty is that the right that one is accorded ought to have good intent, which means that even with the good intent, it makes it easier for other people to respect it, and be dutiful to it. In the case of the Sackler family, it is clear that Kant’s ideas are far from being upheld, since there lacks goodwill, as well as application of ideas based on commonsense. Where the actions of the Sackler family went wrong can be seen in how the issue of the medication was conducted, first, Arthur Sackler introduced the oxycodone-induced drug. Its marketing was done on the basis of the drug being far from being addictive, and instead being able to counter its addiction ability. At the same time, it was marketed to the doctors who were in charge of prescription to the patients in need of pain medication, thus targeting the people that would be able to sell the medication easily, and better. A doctor prescribing medication to their patient is the easiest way of convincing the patient that they will get better, given the fact that they trust their doctor.

Kant further encourages individuals on the basis of forfeiting the craving for the obtaining of a desirable object, in whichever circumstance, so that one may uphold their moral goodness. In short, one’s moral goodness holds more water, compared to their desire for a desirable object. Focusing on the story of the OxyContin drug, it is clear that the Sackler family put their needs first, that is, their obtaining of the desirable object of wealth, while forfeiting their moral goodness, and still being able to hide behind the idea of philanthropy. It is now clear that they prefer putting their need for money, wealth, and fame first before the clean bill of health of the people they are selling the drugs to. There is little consideration for the humans in this regard, which means that they could best be viewed as being inhumane. Denial of the fact that the medication is affecting people is yet another wrong action. Cruelty to fellow humans, as has been done by Purdue through the Sackler leadership, can be said to be going against Kant’s thoughts, which encourage individuals to put certain desires aside, if it means hurting the next person. In short, the importance of an individual’s moral goodness has been advocated (Johnson, & Cureton, 2004).

Kant goes further as to identify the importance of holding onto steadfast commitment, especially when it comes to moral principles, as this makes it possible for an individual to carry on along the path of pursuance. In the case of the Sackler family, it would make sense if the pursuance of fame, wealth, and money would not require them to have their moral convictions given up, otherwise, it would all be viewed as a case of vanity, which it still is, given the scenario. Their pursuance of wealth, and fame has only led to the loss of lives, and people being addicted to drugs that they have continually produced, and supported; while people now view the family members as being inhuman, following their inconsideration of the moral convictions. This only means that goodwill ought not to be dependent upon its relationship with conditions that are thought to be sources of happiness. In this case, therefore, the rights of individuals to effective medication ought to come first, and then it is dutiful of the Sackler family to respect this right by providing medication that acts in this manner. Oxycodin should be out of the picture, together with any other kind of medication that fails to improve the health of an individual. One’s goodwill should remain adamant despite the surrounding motivations that go against the same moral convictions.

References

Forsberg, E.-M., Shelley-Egan, C., Thorstensen, E., Landeweerd, L., & Hofmann, B. (2017). Evaluating ethical frameworks for the assessment of human cognitive enhancement applications.

Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2004). Kant's moral philosophy.

Keefe, P. R. (2017). The family that built an empire of pain. The New Yorker, 30.