While some believe that there are not any general starting
points for ethics due to human difference, Russ Shafer Landau argues in his
book, “The Fundamentals of Ethics” that, “there are some reasonable constraints
that can guide us when thinking about how to live.”(6) One of these
constraints applies to current events involving the limitation of generic drugs
by name-brand companies. Landau’s argument that, “neither the law nor tradition
is immune from moral criticism,”(6) illustrates the current ethical
debate of whether a law restricting generic drugs is morally correct.
A recent New York Times article explains the
fight between biotech firms and generic suppliers on the state level. The biotechnology firms aim
to cut competition, and argue that the law is in place to protect the safety of
patients because the generic pills are not identical to the biotechnology pills
due to the way that they are created. The article states that should the
legislation pass, it would be “cutting into the billions of dollars in savings
on drug costs contemplated in the federal health care overhaul law.”1 Currently, the
Virginia House of Delegates has passed one bill pertaining to these restriction
laws. This poses the following ethical question: Even though this law restricts
pharmacists from prescribing the cheaper version of name-brand drugs to
patients, is it possible that the law itself is unethical?
Generic drug companies have agreed to generic limitation if their
drugs are not deemed interchangeable by the F.D.A. However, if the drugs are
interchangeable, are brand-name companies simply trying to restrict generic
sales for personal monetary gain? In my personal opinion, I believe that if
drugs were deemed interchangeable, it would be morally wrong to create laws
that restrict the sale of a more affordable version. However, I also agree that
drugs not deemed interchangeable could pose safety concerns for people and
should not be freely prescribed as substitutes by pharmacists.
I uphold Landau’s assertion that law is not a supreme moral
guideline. However, our society is based upon the citizen’s support of laws, so
how are we to proceed if a certain law seems immoral? I believe that you oppose
this immorality in a legal and moral way, much like the recent actions of the
generic associations: “in Indiana on
Monday, the House Public Health Committee approved a bill, but lawmakers,
responding to objections from the generic association, removed the requirement
that patients consent to any substitution.”1
In conclusion, the main ethical
question at hand is if it is moral for biotechnology companies to restrict the
sale of an interchangeable, more affordable, generic drug? My ultimate feeling
is no, but I see the opposing view as well. Should generic drug companies be
able to replicate the innovation of biotechnology firms to profit from cheaper
drugs? I argue yes because a company can lawfully duplicate an original idea
after patent expiration; then again, law is not always morally supreme. (6)
1. Article Link:
While the restriction of the sale of an interchangeable, more affordable, generic drug may be business-savy for biotechnology companies, I agree with Nick and believe that, when considering the interest of the general population, the law is immoral. Intentionally charging people greater amounts of money to ensure one company's monopoly both defies our value of offering equal and affordable care to all as well as contradicts the free trade nature of the American economy. Though I can understand the copyright infringements that may come into question surrounding this law, ultimately copyright should not serve as a method to usurp affordability and accessibility of medications to the American population.
ReplyDelete