However, other people were not able to get this drug, people who did not resort to the Internet for help. Is it wrong that Josh got the drug and they did not? Were Josh's parents smart, or were they "cheating" in a way? It is hard not to be happy that a kid is going to live. Yet how do we decide who gets such experimental drugs and who does not? If it was based upon money, that would hardly be fair. Is it right, though, to use the Internet in such a fashion?
This reminds me of the Heinz dilemma we learned about in AP Psychology. Heinz's wife was sick and dying. He could not afford the medicine that would make him better. The drugstore would not lower the price. Should Heinz steal the medicine?
Just as in the Heinz scenario, what is important is not so much what answer you give, but the reasons behind your answer. So I am curious to hear your thoughts on this issue.
Source
4 comments:
Frequently, we will see people, companies, or products gain recognition because they promote themselves. The advertising industry conducts billions of dollars in transactions because consumer attention is what keeps them thriving. While I don’t like the idea of comparing this desperate family to an advertising firm, this is unfortunately how I see it. A company is not going to seek out children or patients in need of the product. This family rallied their cause and utilized social media effectively; nothing about that is illegal. Yet at the same time, they put the pharmaceutical company in an extremely uncomfortable position. When 20,000 people sign a petition for compassionate use, it’s clear to Chimerix that an audience was building. Furthermore, the Washington Post claims that Chimerix, the company that makes the drug in question, is small and publicly traded. Refusing to help a child who received such a large public following could have been a disaster for their stock prices and well-being as a company. For this reason, I agree with the editorial board of the Herald-Sun. Health care decisions should be made in an official manner; this was not handled in a respectful manner.
I think that Josh's parents were smart to go to the internet. In today's world, we see a lot of causes on the internet through this type of campaign, and I think there's nothing wrong with utilizing every resource you have to save the life of your child.
I wouldn't say that it's fair that other kids just as "deserving" of life (isn't that basically everyone though anyway?) don't get the drug Josh had access to, but I would never say that's a reason Josh shouldn't have been treated. I cannot think of a valid argument of why someone shouldn't be "allowed" to use the internet. That seems like a strange and nonsensical and awful obstruction of freedom that...I don't get, even on a "moral" level. Yes, it's sad not every parent did what Josh's parents did, no Josh's parents did not "cheat." They didn't take the drug from someone else, they went through what I believe is a proper channel. They may have strong-armed the company a bit, but they did not put a gun to their head or steal the drug.
And thanks for sharing the AP Psychology example, very intriguing.
I definitely don't think that Josh's parents were cheating by using the internet as a campaign. Simply liking or sharing a page on Facebook has become a very affective way to spread awareness on an issue. However, I do understand the precedent that it sets for other people wanting this experimental drug. When it comes down to it, even though there may be terrible consequences, if there are people who've tried absolutely everything available with no sign of improvement, I think that these drug companies should allow them to take experimental drugs so long as they sign a waiver- with them understanding the unknown effects or risks that may occur.
I would just like to say that I appreciate the level of delicacy you are all showing when addressing this issue.
I'm curious whether there's an age difference on this issue. I wonder whether younger people are more accepting of the use of Facebook for these purposes.
If you're curious, here's more detail about the Heinz dilemma. http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
Post a Comment