The Instigator
Yoguy107
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MiguelV
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

ethics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,760 times Debate No: 41499
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Yoguy107

Pro

Hi there, I am part of an ethics bowl team that will be going to nationals and i need some practice. So here is how this works: I will post a scenario and a question. PICK ANY SIDE YOU WANT, I WILL ARGUE THE OTHER. The objective is to use ethical theories to support your position. since i will not present a case in this first round I would like to ask that my opponent do not either. For their response to this just post the side you want and we can debate in the following rounds.

Scenario: An individual cannot afford a certain medication. Because of the ever greening process done by the company who distributes and develops the drug, patent laws prevent the drug from going mainstream. The individual will die without this drug. Even after explaining their situation multiple times to the company, the company will not lower their drug prices.

Question: Does the company have an ethical obligation to both stop the ever greening process AND lower its drug prices?

AGAIN: for the response to this don't present your case just pick a side and present your case in round 2.
MiguelV

Con

Against..
Debate Round No. 1
Yoguy107

Pro

All right. so id like to start with pointing out what ever greening is. according to health line.com Patent-extending ever greening processes, allow drug companies to maintain a market share after their drug patents expire. so basically the drug companies extend their patents. so what is wrong with extending their patents? ultimately it allows companies to hold a monopoly over certain drugs. with this monopoly they can charge what ever they want. often times (not all the time) they charge astronomical prices for their drugs and this creates problems like individuals who need the drug not being able to get it.
let's start with the first portion of the question. market systems operate under the assumption of fair trade. that is to say that competition drives prices. if one company holds a monopoly over a price or good then that kills any market standards. so the claim i set forth is that if the company were to stop ever greening this would drive down prices and actually create better drugs. why? thats easy. if the drug in question were to go public and generic brands were created then everyone would have equal access. it is common knowledge that generic brands of things are cheaper than name brands. so by competing with generics, the drug company would have to lower its prices in order to compete. but what would make the populous buy name brands over generics? thats also easy, better results. by lowering prices and having to compete with generics in a system of markets then the company would have to do research into changing the drug significantly or having the drug changed enough to have a greater effect than would the generics. so yes over all the company has an obligation to stop ever greening its product.
looking at the second part I've already kind of answered this. but to be clear lowering drug prices would allow equal access to much needed drugs. individuals with equal access would likely then suffer less or extend their life depending on the drug in question. so again yes the company has an obligation to lower its prices.
both parts of the question have positive impacts coming from this side. ethically speaking on the grounds of fairness and equal access in a market system the company has the obligation to both stop ever greening (for the development of better drugs) and lower its prices (to improve the well being of those who can afford them if prices were lowered). thank you.
MiguelV

Con

MiguelV forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MiguelV

Con

MiguelV forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Yoguy107

Pro

Yoguy107 forfeited this round.
MiguelV

Con

MiguelV forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.