![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Answers to HWcase1, Q1
Jan. 27th, 2023 02:13 amQ1 (33 pts. maximum, 16.5 minimum) Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to intellectual property. An ethics case is an example, event, experience, legal case, medical case, and so on from real life, a movie, your imagination, and so on, which has some ethics related aspects to consider. Post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.
• A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
• A list of 5 or more important facts about the case in your own words. You can refer to these as reminders when you tell your group members about the case.
• A list of questions (3 or more) that could get an interesting and enlightening discussion going if you were in a discussion group, or that you would find interesting to consider. See the “Questions to ask during discussion” tab on the course web page for some suggestions in developing your discussion questions.
Answer: The source for my case is: Is it Ethical to Uphold Vaccine Patents during a Global Shortage? - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (scu.edu)
Five important facts are:
1.) People from poorer countries faced high infection rates after those from wealthier countries were returning to normal life.
2.) Poorer countries had less access to vaccines due to agreements that wealthier countries reached with pharmaceutical companies.
3.) These countries also have worse health infrastructure and fewer people are capable of working from home.
4.) There are precedents for waiving patents in the cases of hepatitis B vaccines and HIV drugs.
5.) A possible alternative to patent waivers is patent licensing to enable countries to produce their own vaccines domestically. The United States and India both did this successfully.
Three questions to ask about the case are:
1.) Should there be some medicines or treatments that can’t be patented because the treatment is too important?
2.) Medical treatments often come from publicly funded science. Pharmaceutical companies will then often sell these treatments at high prices. Are these high prices ethical when the research was publicly funded?
3.) It’s been argued that patents incentivize the development of new technologies. Suppose patents for needed treatments were waived and more people received them as a result. Would this be worthwhile even if medical progress wasn’t as fast?
Three additional standard questions:
1.) What does virtue ethics say about this case?
Answer: Virtue ethics would probably say that a just person would value the wellbeing of everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status. This perspective would therefore support waiving vaccine patents during a pandemic since this is what a just and compassionate person would do.
2.) What does utilitarianism say about this case?
Answer: I think a utilitarian would support maintaining patents for vaccines during a pandemic. They would probably argue that keeping patents would support medical innovation and would therefore help more people overall in the future.
3.) What does deontology say about this case?
Answer: I think a deontologist would support waiving vaccine patents during a pandemic. They would probably argue that we have an ethical duty to ease the suffering of the less fortunate and that withholding a vaccine during a medical emergency is simply wrong. They would probably say that performing a cost-benefit analysis for ethical matters is a decision we have no right to make even if we do think it would produce a better result.
• A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
• A list of 5 or more important facts about the case in your own words. You can refer to these as reminders when you tell your group members about the case.
• A list of questions (3 or more) that could get an interesting and enlightening discussion going if you were in a discussion group, or that you would find interesting to consider. See the “Questions to ask during discussion” tab on the course web page for some suggestions in developing your discussion questions.
Answer: The source for my case is: Is it Ethical to Uphold Vaccine Patents during a Global Shortage? - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (scu.edu)
Five important facts are:
1.) People from poorer countries faced high infection rates after those from wealthier countries were returning to normal life.
2.) Poorer countries had less access to vaccines due to agreements that wealthier countries reached with pharmaceutical companies.
3.) These countries also have worse health infrastructure and fewer people are capable of working from home.
4.) There are precedents for waiving patents in the cases of hepatitis B vaccines and HIV drugs.
5.) A possible alternative to patent waivers is patent licensing to enable countries to produce their own vaccines domestically. The United States and India both did this successfully.
Three questions to ask about the case are:
1.) Should there be some medicines or treatments that can’t be patented because the treatment is too important?
2.) Medical treatments often come from publicly funded science. Pharmaceutical companies will then often sell these treatments at high prices. Are these high prices ethical when the research was publicly funded?
3.) It’s been argued that patents incentivize the development of new technologies. Suppose patents for needed treatments were waived and more people received them as a result. Would this be worthwhile even if medical progress wasn’t as fast?
Three additional standard questions:
1.) What does virtue ethics say about this case?
Answer: Virtue ethics would probably say that a just person would value the wellbeing of everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status. This perspective would therefore support waiving vaccine patents during a pandemic since this is what a just and compassionate person would do.
2.) What does utilitarianism say about this case?
Answer: I think a utilitarian would support maintaining patents for vaccines during a pandemic. They would probably argue that keeping patents would support medical innovation and would therefore help more people overall in the future.
3.) What does deontology say about this case?
Answer: I think a deontologist would support waiving vaccine patents during a pandemic. They would probably argue that we have an ethical duty to ease the suffering of the less fortunate and that withholding a vaccine during a medical emergency is simply wrong. They would probably say that performing a cost-benefit analysis for ethical matters is a decision we have no right to make even if we do think it would produce a better result.
