Drug Companies and Poor Nations

) (Wadhwa, Rissing, Gereffi, Trumpbour and Engardio, 2008).

Clearly, it is important to have standards for all pharmaceuticals. Perhaps the WHO or WTO could monitor the quality control of this globally, adding a few cents per dose to help defray the cost, or utilizing a United Nations budget to oversee this program. It is just as important, though, to realize that until the Developed Countries share in their own resources, whether that be intellectual property or certain types of manufacturing, there will remain a large inequity and thus, an inability for globalization to really work (See: Globalization, Patents and Drugs, 2001).

Drug companies like Pfizer do have a utilitarian and moral responsibility to their stakeholders and, conversely, to patients in emerging markets. If there is a drug that will help alleviate suffering, it is not moral to keep it only for the rich countries.

Conversely, there is an argument to be made that the funding for the research and development of these drugs should not necessarily be born entirely by the developed world. Clearly, a case may be made that the alleviation of human suffering does take precedence to egregious profit, but only if the company can exist and perform its moral responsibilities to its employees, investors, and board; as well as remain in business for all those who count on its products simply to stay alive.

Works Cited

Globalization, Patents and Drugs. (2001, March). Retrieved November 2010, from World Health Organization: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js2251e/

Wadhwa, Rissing, Gereffi, Trumpbour and Engardio. (2008, June 18). The Globalization of Innovation: Pharmaceuticals. Retrieved November 2010, from Social Science Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1143472.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *