1

Ethical Implications of Intellectual Property Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The

Case of Martin Shkreli and Turing Pharmaceuticals

First Name Last Name

Course Code: Course Name

Instructor’s Name

Due Date
 2

Introduction

In 2015, a major ethical controversy that hit the pharmaceutical industry when Martin

Shkreli, the then chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price of the life-saving

drug Daraprim by 5,000% overnight. This life-saving drug's price sharply surged from $13.50 to

$750 per pill, which gave way to debate regarding intellectual property rights-related ethical

issues in the pharmaceutical industry. The case highlighted the dilemma between the right of a

company to profit from its investments and the moral obligation to make access to lifesaving

drugs possible. From this perspective, this research will examine Turing's behavior with respect

to various ethical paradigms for its operations and their consequences on several stakeholders.

By exploring the conflict between corporate profitability and public health interests, this research

aims to shed light on the broader ethical challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry.

Background of the Case

Turing Pharmaceuticals was founded in February 2015 by Martin Shkreli, a Hedge Fund

Manager. It immediately established itself in the pharmaceutical space with aggressive

acquisition and pricing policies. An educational background in finance and biotechnology for

Martin Shkreli set the stage for what would be considered a controversial business model for

Turing. Daraprim, whose generic name is pyrimethamine, is used to treat toxoplasmosis, which

is a possibly life-threatening parasitic infection. It has special risks in patients whose body

immunity could be compromised, like in the cases of HIV/AIDS, and during pregnancy because

of the danger of congenital toxoplasmosis.

It all began on September 20, 2015—the now completely controversial Turing

Pharmaceuticals, led by Martin Shkreli, raised the price of Daraprim overnight from $13.50 to
 3

$750 per tablet, which represents an increase of 5,000%. A lot of criticism and scrutiny from

professionals in the medical field and patients and, well, everybody else followed almost

instantly. Shkreli defended the price hike by saying they needed to invest in research and

development for new treatments. He claimed that Daraprim was an older drug that needed

modernizing, and the profits would be plowed into creating better therapies. But many critics

slammed the price rise as unjustified anyway, which meant that the drug would just remain

beyond the reach of a lot of patients who desperately needed it.

Soon enough, the Daraprim pricing controversy swept the country. It was in the national

news, with Shkreli himself in interviews stoking the public outrage by his manner of explanation

and how he is unapologetic. Besides Turing Pharmaceuticals, the case turned out to be having

deep-ranging consequences in terms of its intriguing congressional hearings into drug pricing

practices and calls for reform in pharmaceutical industry regulation. This also brought to the fore

the tension between intellectual property law, on the one hand, which allows firms to recoup

their investments, and the ethical duty of ensuring access to essential medicines on the other.

Shkreli became a magnet for criticism due to his very combative public persona and defense of

the price hike in public.

Moral Dimensions of the Case

The Turing Pharmaceuticals case presents complex moral dimensions, primarily centered

on the conflict between profit maximization and public health, and the potential exploitation of

intellectual property rights. The tension between profit-seeking behavior and public health needs

forms the core moral dilemma in this case. While businesses, including pharmaceutical

companies, have a legitimate interest in generating profits, the extreme nature of Turing's price

increase raised serious ethical concerns. The 5,000% price increase for Daraprim threatened to
 4

render a life-saving drug unaffordable for most patients, potentially putting their health and well-

being at risk. This action brought out the moral question of whether there should be boundaries

in profit-seeking where human lives are concerned (Wempe & Frooman, 2016).

The case also puts to limelight the ethical issues pertaining to intellectual property rights,

especially in the field of healthcare. Though patents and exclusive rights to market offer

companies benefits as profitable incentives for innovation, the actions by Turing only seemed to

take advantage of the same system. On the contrary, it massively increased the price of an

existing drug it did not even develop. This raised issues of an ethical use of intellectual property

rights and of whether under the current rules, public interests were decently respected.

Another moral dimension involves the concept of fair pricing in healthcare. The sudden

and extreme price increase of Daraprim challenged notions of fairness and equitable access to

essential medicines. It prompted discussions about what constitutes a just price for life-saving

drugs and whether market forces alone should determine such prices.

The case also underlines moral questions of corporate social responsibility in the context

of the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceuticals bear greater ethical commitments compared to

other business ventures, considering their products directly affect human life and health. The

case of Turing stirs up arguments regarding how far this obligation reaches, and if the current

practices in the industry help fulfill it. The opaque nature of drug pricing and the seemingly

arbitrary nature of the price increase raised ethical questions about the responsibility of

pharmaceutical companies to justify their pricing decisions to the public and regulators (Palmer,

2023).

Stakeholder Analysis
 5

The Turing Pharmaceuticals case concerns various stakeholders who are differently

affected by the activities that the company had taken. In this view, patients are primary and also

directly or possibly most severely affected. With a price increase in Daraprim by 5,000 percent,

it might get unaffordable to many, particularly in the population stratum of HIV/AIDS patients

and pregnant women who have risks of contracting toxoplasmosis. A dramatic rise in price can

result in interruption to, or lack of access of treatment, which may further compromise health

outcomes. The patients and their families are put under a lot of emotional distress and sometimes

a financial burden that cannot be overstated (Alpern et al., 2014).

Healthcare providers, including doctors and hospitals, encountered significant challenges

due to the price increase. They were caught between ethical dilemmas of prescribing an

exorbitantly priced drug that could compel them to opt for less effective alternatives. The price

hike also strained hospital budgets, particularly for institutions serving vulnerable populations.

This situation lead to difficult decisions about resource allocation and potentially impact the

quality of care provided.

Insurance companies experienced increased costs, hence probably a premium increase for

all their clients. They were pressed to maintain coverage at this inflated drug price without

jeopardizing their financial sustainability. What's more, the situation brought to the fore the

complex dynamics of negotiation in drug pricing between pharmaceutical companies and

insurers.

Shareholders of Turing Pharmaceuticals would have benefited from a surge in the

company's profits. However, the ensuing public backlash and possible regulatory scrutiny put at

stake long-term value and reputation for the company. This case perfectly illustrated how short-

term profit maximization might be opposed to long-term sustainable business practices.

 6

Government regulators, FDA and FTC were struggling to address what most thought

were predatory pricing practices. The event ignited discussions in the field of developed

regulations about the adequacy and even changes to the field: drug pricing and patent laws. It

brought up one crucial standpoint: how to prevent the battle that arises due to the challenges

facing regulators to balance providing developers/manufacturers with innovation incentives and

persons with affordable access to essential medicines (Khachigian, 2020).

Values at Stake

The Turing Pharmaceuticals case underlines several important values that underline this

tension between corporate interest and social welfare within the pharmaceutical industry. One of

the core values represented through this controversy is access to health. An increased price for

drug Daraprim threatens to make a very expensive vital medication for most patients. This raises

critical questions as to the right to good health and ethical duties lying on the shoulders of

pharmaceutical companies. Access to essential medicines is an integral part of the right to health

recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2017). Turing violated this tenet with his

price increase and therein put patient well-being at risk for millions in profit.

Another critical value that emerges from the case is that of corporate social responsibility.

While it is true that a company must be able to turn a profit for its shareholders, increasingly,

there is a view that a company bears some responsibility toward society. This issue naturally

takes on great acuteness in a health sector intervention because of its impact on human life. The

price increase by Turing seemed to emphasize short-term profits at the expense of social

responsibility and drew debate on how far the ethical duties of a pharmaceutical company stretch

into areas other than making a profit.

 7

The case strikingly points out the tension between maximizing profits and social welfare:

where profit is needed to sustain a viable business, to innovate, Turing's extreme price raise

raises the question as far as the limits of ethical behavior in pursuit of profit go. But this tension

is highly visible in the pharmaceutical sector, in which the profit motive may well stand in wide

and direct contrast to the public health interest.

The debate also covers innovation as a value, with many pharmaceutical companies

charging high prices to invest in further research into new treatment options. The Turing case,

however, was not a new drug but an existing one; it therefore falls outside that particular debate

and becomes one of the matter of balancing reward for past innovation with making lifesaving

medicines available in an affordable way.

It brings the value of ethical leadership into focus. Shkreli's combative public stance and

unapologetic defense of the price hike raised questions about the role of leadership in setting

ethical standards within organizations and industries (Hartman et al., 2021).

Benefits and Burdens Analysis

The Turing Pharmaceuticals case presents a complex array of benefits and burdens, with

implications varying significantly across different stakeholders and timeframes. The most

immediate and tangible benefit from the price increase of Daraprim to Turing would be financial

gain in the short term. In fact, the company stood to enjoy a massive boost to its revenue and

profitability from the 5,000% price increase of Daraprim. This could, theoretically, provide a

sudden inflow of cash for funding research and development efforts, as the company has

claimed. Such extreme pricing for an already established drug has very questionable ethical

justification. (Pollack, 2015).

 8

Despite these potential short-term gains, the long-term reputational damage to Turing

Pharmaceuticals has been substantial. The public outcry and media scrutiny surrounding the

price increase severely tarnished the company's image. This reputational hit extended beyond

Turing to cast a shadow over the entire pharmaceutical industry, intensifying public skepticism

about drug pricing practices. The damage to Turing's reputation likely outweighed any short-

term financial benefits, potentially impacting future business opportunities and partnerships.

The impact on patients and the healthcare system represents the most significant burden.

The patients who needed Daraprim, especially those with HIV/AIDS and pregnant women at risk

from toxoplasmosis, stood to face possible disruptions in treatment or total lack of the same

medication following its sudden unaffordability. This may result in critical damage to health

and693 more medical complications, thus posing a burden not only on patients but also on the

health system as a whole.

It suddenly limited access to one of the critical medications, the burden of which fell

squarely on the shoulders of healthcare providers managing patient care. This situation puts

doctors in a position to consider ineffective alternatives or to grapple with the moral dilemma of

prescribing a drug that many could no longer afford. This will thus create a strain on budgets

starting with hospitals and clinics, especially those dealing with vulnerable populations, which

may further impact comprehensive care.

The whole medical health system was under strain. Insurance companies incurred higher

costs, which translated to increased premiums for all subscribers. Government health care plans

like Medicaid were under more pressure, stretching their budgets thin and affecting the delivery

of other services that they offered. It also brought out some system failures in drug pricing and
 9

access, with many demanding regulatory changes and stricter monitoring for better control

(Kesselheim et al., 2016).

While Turing and its shareholders stood to benefit financially in the short term, the

burdens imposed on patients, healthcare providers, and the broader healthcare system were

substantial and far-reaching. The case underscores the need for a more balanced approach to

drug pricing that considers both innovation incentives and public health needs.

Comparable Cases

The Turing Pharmaceuticals case, while notorious, is not an isolated incident in the

pharmaceutical industry. Other instances of dramatic price increases have sparked similar

controversies and debates about ethical practices in drug pricing. One comparable case involves

Valeant Pharmaceuticals (now Bausch Health), which acquired several heart medications in 2015

and subsequently raised their prices by 212% to 525% (Pollack & Tavernise, 2015). Like Turing,

Valeant targeted older, off-patent drugs with limited competition. However, Valeant's strategy

was more widespread, involving multiple drugs across different therapeutic areas.

Another example is Mylan's EpiPen price hike. From 2007 to 2016, Mylan increased the

price of EpiPen, a life-saving allergy medication, by more than 500% (Woodyard & Layne,

2016). This case shares similarities with Turing's in that both involved essential, life-saving

medications. However, EpiPen was a branded product still under patent protection, unlike

Daraprim.

These cases share key similarities with Turing.

 Dramatic price increases on existing drugs

 Targeting of essential medications

 Exploitation of market inefficiencies or limited competition

 10

However, there are notable differences.

 Scale: Valeant's strategy was more extensive than Turing's single-drug focus

 Patent status: EpiPen was still patent-protected, unlike Daraprim

 Public response: While all cases faced backlash, Shkreli's provocative public persona

intensified scrutiny on Turing

These comparable cases demonstrate that the Turing controversy is part of a broader

trend in pharmaceutical pricing strategies. They highlight the tension between profit-seeking

behavior and ethical responsibilities in healthcare, emphasizing the need for a more

comprehensive approach to regulating drug pricing and ensuring patient access to essential

medications.

Relevant Others for Consultation

In analyzing the ethical implications of Turing Pharmaceuticals' actions, it is crucial to

consult various experts and stakeholders to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Bioethicists play a vital role in evaluating the moral dimensions of pharmaceutical

pricing strategies. Their expertise in applying ethical frameworks to healthcare dilemmas can

provide valuable insights into the balance between profit motives and social responsibility. For

instance, bioethicist have argued that pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to make

life-saving drugs accessible, particularly when the cost of production is low compared to the

price charged (Ballano, 2022).

Health care policy experts provide key insights into the broader implications of their drug

pricing practices. Their expertise in health care systems, insurance mechanisms, and regulatory

frameworks is uniquely important to understand the systemic impact of price gouging. One

example among others is health policy researcher Aaron Kesselheim, who conducted research on
 11

the interplay between high drug prices, patient access, and health care costs (Kesselheim et al.,

2016).

Patient advocacy groups can speak for those most directly affected by drug pricing

decisions within their organizations. Organizations like Patients for Affordable Drugs will very

often be called upon to provide firsthand accounts of how the price hikes affect individuals and

families. These groups overall have a great deal of knowledge about specific diseases and

treatments, positioning them to uniquely share real-world implications relevant to

pharmaceutical pricing strategies.

Legal and Organizational Considerations

The case intersects with several legal and organizational frameworks that govern

pharmaceutical industry practices. FDA regulations play a crucial role in drug pricing and

availability. Although the FDA itself does not regulate the prices of drugs, its policies do have an

impact on the market. For instance, the agency's drive to remove from the market older,

unapproved drugs inadvertently created opportunities for companies like Turing to acquire and

dramatically reprice these medications. This well illustrates how regulatory actions can have

major unintended consequences on drug pricing and availability.

The second, of course, has to do with the antitrust laws. Although Turing did not violate

any antitrust laws per se in this matter, their actions gave rise to concerns over possible anti-

competitive practices within the pharmaceutical industries. In a bid to rein in drug makers who

devise strategies to forestall generic competition or gouge prices, the FTC has been watching

pharmaceutical companies more closely of late. In 2017, the FTC filed a complaint against

Turing—then Vyera Pharmaceuticals—for anti-competitive conduct aimed at preserving its

monopoly in Daraprim (Federal Trade Commission, 2020).

 12

Matters of corporate governance form the crux around which something can be inferred

from the case of decision-making at Turing. In essence, they bring up questions of how much the

corporate board can watch over a company's ethical business practices and the delicate issue of

balancing shareholder interest with the responsibility it stands to hold towards a larger section of

society. For letting a pricing strategy this controversial, the board has been criticized regarding

the necessity for robust ethical oversight in a corporate governance structure.

These legal and organizational features sufficiently reflect the highly complex and

detailed regulatory environment in which pharmaceutical companies operate; they underline the

need for a multidimensional approach toward the regulation of drug prices and accessibility—not

only through direct pricing regulations but also via other reforms in patent law, antitrust, and

corporate governance standards.

Ethical Analysis

From a utilitarian perspective, which focuses on maximizing overall well-being, Shkreli's

decision to dramatically increase the price of Daraprim appears deeply problematic.

Utilitarianism, as described by philosophers like John Stuart Mill, would consider the

consequences of this action on all affected parties (Brittanica, n.d.). While the price hike might

have increased short-term profits for Turing and its shareholders, it potentially caused significant

harm to patients who could no longer afford the medication, healthcare providers struggling to

treat patients, and insurance companies facing increased costs. The negative impact on public

health and individual well-being likely outweighs any benefits, making the action ethically

unjustifiable from a utilitarian standpoint.

Deontological ethics, associated with Immanuel Kant, emphasizes moral duties and

intentions rather than consequences. From this perspective, Shkreli's actions might be evaluated
 13

based on whether they treat people as ends in themselves rather than merely as means to an end.

By prioritizing profit over patient access to essential medication, Shkreli's decision appears to

violate Kant's Categorical Imperative, which states that one should act only according to rules

that could become universal laws (Johnson & Cureton, 2022). If all pharmaceutical companies

adopted similar pricing strategies, it would lead to a healthcare system where life-saving drugs

are inaccessible to many, contradicting the principle of respect for human dignity central to

deontological ethics.

Virtue ethics, which focuses on character and moral excellence, would likely condemn

Shkreli's actions as they demonstrate a lack of compassion, justice, and social responsibility –

virtues typically associated with ethical behavior in healthcare. The pursuit of excessive profit at

the expense of patient well-being contradicts the virtues expected of healthcare industry leaders.

From a social contract theory perspective, Shkreli's actions could be seen as violating the implicit

agreement between pharmaceutical companies and society. This theory suggests that companies

function on the silent consent of society itself and have responsibilities towards well-being,

health, and other such welfare criteria of the population. Turing broke this social contract by

prioritizing short-term profit over public health. The care ethics, and emphasis on compassion

and responsibility in relating among people would more than likely find that Shkreli's actions

failed to adequately care for the vulnerable patients who depended on Daraprim. Whereas

various ethical frameworks direct different decisions, most of them seem to point toward the fact

that Shkreli's actions are inequitable.

Conclusions & Recommendations

The case of Martin Shkreli and Turing Pharmaceuticals highlights critical ethical issues

within the pharmaceutical industry, particularly regarding drug pricing and access to essential
 14

medications. The dramatic price increase of Daraprim exposed the tension between profit-driven

business models and the ethical responsibility to ensure public health. That brought out critical

points at the intersection of the potential for exploitation of market inefficiencies with respect to

drug pricing, shareholder interest versus broader societal needs, inadequacy of existing regulator

frameworks in preventing such practices, and ethical consideration of multiple stakeholder

perspectives in decision-making. An ethically sound pathway for the pharmaceutical companies

has to be one in which, according to a group of experts, the pricing model is transparent, business

profitability is aligned with affordability, engenders meaningful dialogue together between

patient entities' representative groups and health professionals, manages price increase for critical

drugs, and opens possibilities for further research into new treatments rather than repricing

existing drugs. If the implications of a reformed pharmaceutical industry reach further up the

ladder and change into being practical, they will be huge.

There is, quite naturally, a need for more sound ethical guideline content and stronger

industry self-regulation. The case might open up the pretty field of drug pricing to much more

heuristic intervention by governments and enhance public scrutiny accompanied by heightened

demands in corporate social responsibility. This underlines that business strategy really has to

orient itself towards ethical considerations and requirements of public health from now on. Such

an attitude would pay off not only in serving the public good but also for securing the

sustainability of the earned trust in the long run within the industry. Finding a balance between

innovation, profitability, and accessibility will be crucial for a more ethical future both for

pharmaceutical companies and their patients.

References
 15

Alpern, J. D., Stauffer, W. M., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2014). High-Cost Generic Drugs —

Implications for Patients and Policymakers. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(20),

1859–1862. [Link]

Ballano, V. O. (2022). Corporate Moral Responsibility, Distributive Justice, the Common Good,

and Catholic Social Teaching: The Case of Gilead Sciences and Remdesivir. The Linacre

Quarterly, 002436392211162. [Link]

Brittanica. (n.d.). Utilitarianism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, Ethics, Philosophers, &

Facts | Britannica. [Link].

[Link]

%20in%20normative%20ethics%2C%20a

Federal Trade Commission. (2020, January 27). Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC. Federal Trade

Commission. [Link]

vyera-pharmaceuticals-llc

Gupta, R., Dhruva, S. S., Fox, E. R., & Ross, J. S. (2017). The FDA Unapproved Drugs

Initiative: An Observational Study of the Consequences for Drug Prices and Shortages in

the United States. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, 23(10), 1066–1076.

[Link]

Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2022, January 21). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy. [Link]

Kesselheim, A. S., Avorn, J., & Sarpatwari, A. (2016). The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in

the United States. JAMA, 316(8), 858. [Link]

 16

Khachigian, L. M. (2020). Pharmaceutical patents: reconciling the human right to health with the

incentive to invent. Drug Discovery Today, 25(7).

[Link]

Palmer, P. (2023, April 17). The Importance of Ethics in the Pharmaceutical Industry.

[Link]. [Link]

industry-paul-palmer

Pollack, A. (2015, September 20). Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight. The

New York Times. [Link]

[Link]

Pollack, A., & Tavernise, S. (2015, October 4). Valeant’s Drug Price Strategy Enriches It, but

Infuriates Patients and Lawmakers. The New York Times.

[Link]

[Link]

Wempe, B., & Frooman, J. (2016). Reframing the Moral Limits of Markets Debate: Social

Domains, Values, Allocation Methods. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 1–15.

[Link]

WHO. (2024). Indicator Metadata Registry Details. [Link].

[Link]