One could argue that prohibiting the search that Ruche was performing could inhibit future Chinese patients from receiving a drug that could be necessary to sustain life. Roach’s Cell Kept had a beneficial plan for the Chinese society in creating a drug to help sustain life or fight the disease for their specific ethnicity. As a utilitarian, finding a resolution for the good is the most ethical and just decision. The utilitarian should argue that Ruche had no control over how the organs were harvested.
Knowing or not knowing where the organs were originating from wouldn’t be as important, as Eng as their end goal of saving lives would be completed. Rights are defined as individual entitlements to freedom of choice and well-being This may lead a rights based ethic to say that the prisoners from which the organs were being harvested could not be accepted because they were being held against their free will. An ethical person may also argue that there is no way to know under what conditions the organs were being removed from such prisoners.
However since rights are up to the individual, it cannot be determined if the individual is recently dead. The conditions of this study are questionable since there is no way of knowing if the prisoner declined to be a part of this study. More so, if the organs are being sold for a profit instead of research, then this decision would be defined unethical by moral standards. Now, which approach is stronger and reasonable? We see the reference to which viewpoint being the strongest and most reasonable, this is an extremely controversial issue.
Lives are on the line in both situations. Views differ from person to person and different arguments can be made for both utilitarianism and rights-based. When it comes to the right-based ethic, Ruche was in violation of the prisoner’s basic human rights. The company knew that up to ninety percent of organs came from executed prisoners. The company should have looked into why the prisoner was executed because some of the them were there because of their religious belief and the different opinions between them and the governments.
One view is that of the rights based ethic. A utilitarian measures utility of the benefits produced by an action. Ethics could prove that many prisoners being held were not criminals. They could also prove that many organs were being harvested only for money. The ethic has a strong and more reasonable case in this situation. Even though most people in China would have benefited by keeping the drug, the process of testing the drug was polluted by the violation of basic human rights that even the people using the drug would have hated.
However, on the other hand, utilitarianism provides a defense for Ruche because the company was looking to benefit the country of China as a whole 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 if you would only threat the prisoners. Question # 2 : Is it ethical to continue testing Cell Kept on its Chinese transplant patients? Answer # 2 : Both sides of the argument are made in this case as well.
In business we must evaluate decisions along ethical lines and we must address whether it is worth something ethically questionable for the sake of good. Cell Kept is a drug designed to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. In order to market Cell Kept in China, Ruche needed regulatory approval that would only be given after the completion of drug trials in China Ruche made a judgment call based on a utilitarian viewpoint of the situation. He was aware that the patients he was testing Cell Kept on were possibly living with these harvested organs.
However, it is not Roach’s concern to understand whether these were innocent or punishable people were killed for an unjust reason. If the drug was not tested on the Chinese people, it could not be used on anyone of this country, even those receiving organs from family. Chinese prevents pharmaceutical companies from determining the origin of the transplant organ as in many countries. Even though a percentage of the organs of its test patients had to have been harvested from prisoners, it was not possible for the company to find out the source of its Chinese patients’ organs.
The issue lies among the Chinese who are murdering for money. The ethical standard of Ruche being considered is almost insignificant considering the ethical behavior of those who were harvesting organs from innocent people. On the other side, Ruche was “concerned” of the controversy because of their involvement with transplants operations. Beside this, it was not ethical for Ruche to continue testing. Because Dry. Ashcan stated that Cell Kept was a medicine that had save thousands of patients’ lives, they should continue using it?
The fact that the company was violating peoples’ rights was and still is an unethical practice according to the definition we studied . Ethics is genuinely a subject that has everything to do with the opinion of the person in charge or the majority vote. We can all give and let our viewpoints be considered. It seems sometimes the outcome is not always being matched with our own personal view. The best thing is to hold on to your morals standards and make choices to the best of your own ability.
