Introduction This case presents a conflict between profit maximization and compassionate capitalism, highlighting the pharmaceutical company's social responsibility. The central ethical dilemma lies in balancing the financial burden of developing a life-saving drug with the moral imperative to provide access to healthcare for vulnerable populations, similar to the limited access to essential medicines faced by many during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilitarianism, focusing on maximizing overall well-being, offers a suitable framework for evaluating potential actions.

Stakeholder Identification Pharmaceutical company, CEO, scientists, shareholders, tribal communities affected by the liver disease, government healthcare agencies, medical professionals, other potential patients with the liver disease.

Answers

(a) & (b) Actions, Pros, and Cons

1. Develop the Drug at Company Expense:

   • Pros: Upholds the common good approach and aligns with the utilitarian principle of maximizing overall happiness by potentially saving numerous lives. Demonstrates a commitment to social justice and access to healthcare. May enhance the company's reputation and attract socially conscious investors.
   • Cons: Significant financial burden on the company, potentially impacting profits and shareholder returns. Risk of not recouping the investment. May set a precedent for future charitable endeavors, straining resources.

2. Partner with Government or NGOs:

   • Pros: Shared financial burden reduces the company's risk. Leverages government resources and expertise in public health distribution. Fulfills the social contract theory by addressing a public health crisis through collaboration. Potentially faster rollout of the drug due to government support.
   • Cons: Bureaucratic hurdles and delays may slow down the development and distribution process. Potential conflicts of interest and negotiations regarding pricing and access. Dependence on external entities introduces uncertainties.

3. Seek Public Funding and Grants:

   • Pros: Reduces the financial burden on the company while contributing to the public good. Attracts positive publicity and demonstrates corporate social responsibility. Aligns with the sustainable development goal of good health and well-being.
   • Cons: Competitive grant application process with no guarantee of success. Potential restrictions on drug pricing and distribution imposed by funding agencies. May delay the drug development timeline.

4. Tiered Pricing Strategy:

   • Pros: Allows the company to partially recover costs while providing affordable access to the drug in poverty-stricken areas. Balances profit maximization with social responsibility. Addresses the injustice of limited access to healthcare based on socioeconomic status.
   • Cons: Complex implementation and potential for exploitation if not carefully regulated. May not fully address the financial needs of the poorest patients. Requires careful consideration of ethical pricing principles to avoid profiteering.

5. Limited Production for Research Purposes:

   • Pros: Minimizes financial risk while continuing research and development. Allows for further investigation into the drug's efficacy and potential long-term effects.
   • Cons: Delays widespread access to the drug, potentially prolonging suffering. May be perceived as prioritizing profit over human life, raising ethical concerns. Fails to address the immediate needs of the affected population.

6. Sell the Patent or License the Drug to Another Company:

   • Pros: Recoups some of the research and development costs without taking on the full burden of production and distribution. Allows another company with potentially more resources or expertise in the relevant market to develop the drug.
   • Cons: Loss of control over drug pricing and accessibility. Potential for the acquiring company to prioritize profit over public welfare. May not fully address the needs of the tribal communities.

Conclusion

This case underscores the ethical complexities inherent in pharmaceutical development and access to healthcare. It highlights the tension between public welfare and private gain. The "Medicines for All" campaign in India exemplifies a positive initiative aimed at increasing access to affordable medicines. An ethical way forward involves implementing a multi-pronged approach that includes public-private partnerships, tiered pricing strategies, and government subsidies to ensure equitable access to life-saving medications, upholding the right to health as a fundamental human right. This promotes sustainable development by addressing both economic and social well-being. Transparency in research and development costs and drug pricing is crucial to build public trust and ensure accountability.