Jean Angelica D.
Cabigao
BUS 185 – T (6:10 – 9:00 pm)
Chapter 2 – Traidos Bank and Roche’s Drug Trials in China
Questions:
1. Explain how utilitarianism might provide a defense for Roche and how a rights-based ethic
might instead condemn Roche’s drug trials in China. Which of these two approaches is stronger
or more reasonable? Explain the reasons for your answer.
Utilitarianism is the view that action and policies should be evaluated based on the benefits and
cost they produce for everyone in society. And holds that morally right course of action in any
situation is the one that would have the most beneficial consequences and the fewest harms for
everyone affected. Utilitarianism might provide a defense for Roche by stating that the organs taken
from the prisoners with their consent for the purpose of Roche’s drug trials is acceptable because there
was good that will come from the organ donated and the testing by saving lives and this outweigh the
negative issue of where the organs came from. It might bring a lot of benefits to the patients once the
drug test success and that stopping the research that Roche was doing could affect future patients. As a
utilitarian, finding a resolution for the greater good is the most ethical and just decision. Knowing or
not knowing where the organs were originating from wouldn’t be as important, if their end goal of
saving lives would be completed.
Rights are defined as an individual entitlement to freedom of choice and well-being. Rights-based
ethic might instead condemn Roche’s drug trials in China because the company knew that up to ninety
percent of organs came from executed prisoners. The company should have investigated why the
prisoner ended up in that situation but even if the prisoner has given a permission in an agreement to do
something, such consent while imprisoned cannot consider free will. And there is no way to know
under what conditions the organs were being removed from such individuals. However since ‘rights’
are up to the individual, it cannot be determined if the individual is deceased. Every human has rights
in doing everything without the force of anyone. Human rights are largely ignored and therefore
violate moral code. There is no question that the method by which these organs were obtained violates
moral and ethical standards in many cultures. Therefore, anyone knowingly involved with participants
of the study in any way could be called to questionable moral and ethical beliefs and practices.
Between the two approaches the one which is stronger and reasonable depends on the point of view
of different individuals. A utilitarian measures utility of the benefits produced by an action. An ethic
could prove that the process of testing the drug was tainted by the violation of basic human rights.
However, on the other hand, utilitarianism provides a defense for Roche because the company was
looking to benefit the country given that they were in favor of the medicine that prevented patients
from post-transplant organ rejection. This view would have been a strong decision for society even
though there is an issue regarding the organ situation. As far as this case is considered utilitarian does
support Roche’s drug tests on transplant patient because the test helps the company will later help
patients to adjust with the new organ support. But as Right-based ethic highly emphasize on the
importance of individual human rights than the overall outcome, it is not ruled by maximizing interest
satisfaction, but by equalizing rights of individual protection. However, businesses are surrounded with
practices that utilize utilitarian philosophy. Especially nowadays any practice or behavior which
ignores human rights will struggle to be accepted. Therefore, utilitarianism in this case is not the
stronger argument.
2. Is it ethical for Roche to continue testing CellCept on its Chinese transplant patients?
It is ethical because Roche was never actively involved in the act of taking away a human being’s
rights. In fact, they were helping people live. They were trying to make available the drug for those
organ recipients. Roche had no way of controlling the situation and the Chinese legislation prevents
companies from determining the origin of the transplant organ, so it was not possible for the company
to find out the source of its patients’ organs. However, you should also show care, gratitude, and
consideration to every individual that would be involved in the situation. Thus, Roche were just there
to help those in need and deal with rights and betterment of the people. In business, we must evaluate
and address decisions ethically for the sake of the greater good. And if they suspect that something
happening may be unethically, neglecting to change anything could escalates the issue. The best thing
to do is to hold on to the morals and make choices to the best of their ability.
3. Is Traidos Bank ethically justified in excluding Roche’s stock from the funds it offers its
customers? Consider your answer in light of the bank’s duty to invest money wisely and in
light of its own conclusion that Roche was among “the best performing 50% of pharmaceutical
companies in Europe,” was “transparent about sustainability issues,” had “a comprehensive
position regarding genetic engineering and clear ethical guidelines for clinical trials,” enforced
high “standards” for its suppliers, and strove to “reduce energy consumption and green-house
gas emissions.”
It is unethical for Traidos Bank to exclude Roche from their funding just because they wanted to
invest their money wisely. Also, their only concern is with their brand image regarding the award that
was received by Roche instead of thinking of an ethical solution for this case. There should be a proper
investigation, evaluation, and justification of the issue that redefine the boundaries of ethical guidelines
without any connection with the Public Eye Award before removing Roche’s stock. Traidos Bank
should think twice, as Roche service has direct influence over human life. Aside from that, they’re
among the best performing company, transparent about issues of sustainability, have a clear clinical
trial guideline, reduce energy consumption, and enforce high standards. Thus, Roche uphold their
credibility, care about the environment, and have a reputable brand that help a lot of people. Traidos
Bank is looking at its own ethical criteria measures instead of Roche’s performance or outcomes. They
should know that success comes from achieving mutual interest between producer, client, customer,
and society. Companies should be ethical in their judgement.
4. Are Traidos Bank’s ethical standards set too high?
Based on the case, the ethical standards that Traidos bank have is too high and not enough
businesses met its criteria. The bank sets up a funding that would make equity investments in the
growing social enterprise and it is because they must also keep up their competitive position in the
industry. This situation can create an unsteady relationship with its client because of the risk of getting
disqualify anytime. Traidos Bank should have to redefine their standard in order to make fund
available for businesses. It should focus more on the outcome rather than principles/action. High
ethical standards also require continuous attention and support. However, businesses do not favor fixed
rules and regulations they just know how to adjust the business in the changing environment situations.
Ethical standard in businesses need new features that redefine, reflect, and strengthen the values of the
organization to identify certain problems without destroying the relationship with their clients.
