Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision to substantially increase the price of Daraprim was ethical

We would like to have everyone keep in mind that both Danielle and I are playing Devil's Advocate in this debate. This round we will begin with our Case and then move onto rebuttals if the limits permit. Contention 1: Stakeholder Theory One of the key aspects that surrounds a business is the Stakeholders. The traditional model is that of the Shareholders where only the business is to deliver Dividends to the investors. The only issue with that is there is more than just the investors and the business. There is the Stakeholders that comprise of the community, customers, and more [1]. The one issue here is when the company tries to maximize its profits, it will see a decrease in its income as customers would leave their business for other companies. The only issue in this case is that the USFG has created a monopoly for Daraprim. This shows that there is significant harm created by the business as they are literally forced to have to pay for this great amount of money for the pill that is produced for $1. I will go more in-depth on the monopoly later on. Another portion that goes hand-in-hand with the Stakeholder theory is that of Utilitarianism, which is why I'm placing it into this section. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. This means that we have to look at the needs of the whole vs. a few individuals. Another key thing we have to look at from Mill is Net Pleasure. If the vaccinations create a greater net pleasure than pain, then it must be implemented for the betterment of society. [2] Before my opponent comes in and argues that shots hurt, Mill goes and argues that short term pain and pleasure are irrelevant and long term pleasure and pain is what should be looked at in general. One thing that our opponent's had failed to bring up is what the drug actually does. The drug is an anti-parasite that is for people who have cancer and HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization has labeled it as one of the most important and needed drugs in the world. [3] The fact that we are depriving people who are nearing the end of their life we are condemning hundreds of thousands of people to either go bankrupt or die. Only 2,000 people could afford it before the increase even though 22.5% of Americans over the age of 12 suffer from the parasite that destroys their immune system [4]. It is more likely than not that these numbers will rise substantially as this giant increase will push them further and further away from being able to afford this and with so many Americans suffering from a deadly ailment that this pill that takes $1 for us to make is ludicrous. This is no longer about profits here, but about the destruction of human life. Contention 2: Market Monopoly In the free market and prices rise in some area, it is naturally for the customer to select another product from a rival that is cheaper than the previous product of near equal quality. When there are monopolies, this is not the case as people have no choice, but to purchase a product from these producers. The same is here with Daraprim, as they have no close alternative as they hold a monopoly on the market. Though there are currently several companies that sell Daraprim like drugs in the global market, they are barred from selling in the US due to FDA standards and other governmental barriers to entry that literally make it impossible for any other company to enter the market [5]. Without an alternative, people are forced to be held hostage to these groups or give them a potential death sentence. The free market cannot operate under monopolies since there is no incentive for change or anything at all. This is seen as Daraprim raised their prices substantially. To show the sort of issue that is going is to see that the pill is really only $1 to produce and was raised from $13.50 to $750 per pill [4]. This shows that they are making a substantial increase in their turn-over rate, which not only covers any and all costs the company has, but is a substantial profit. The monopoly itself should be abolished and have competition created, but since the government has barriers to entry that are extremely too high, this pharma company should work to lower their prices. They sellers of Daraprim had stated last year that they were looking to cut prices by 50% for hospitals and have it fall all across the board [6]. We know that it is possible for the company to sell at a way lower price and make a profit, but instead, they reneged on their promise and went the opposite way and raised their prices by 5,000%. Contention 3: Ethic of Care The Ethic of Care, or also known as the feminism argument, revolves around the protection of special relationships. The Utilitarian argument regards the importance of the protection of the society and this argument will get down to the individual level. The Ethic of Care values special relationships like that of family, but as well as the relationships between generations as the Eco-feminism argument pushes for the preservation of future generations. [7] In order to win this argument I must show that the mandatory protects and preserves future generations. As I have previously shown, Americans are in serious need for this drug and even before the price increase, not all Americans were getting the treatment they needed. 22.5% of Americans over the age of 12 are in need of such a drug while only 2,000 people are able to get it due to the amount it costs. We can see that the aspect that we are continuing the loss of human lives here constantly leading to a harm in the future of humanity. We are not helping our fellow Americans, but instead digging their graves just so the company can increase their profit margins as many Americans who need the drug can't receive it. ===Rebuttals=== R1: Capitalism and Freedom Our opponent's goes on to start an entire fallous argument by arguing around the resolution through a causal inductive argument. It shouldn't be accepted on these grounds alone, yet we shall continue to debate it. The major flaw here is that our opponents has made this simple as all we have to do is show that there is something unethical about the free market system which permitted. Our opponents go and bring up the most preposterous statement that if we don't have capitalism then we would have slavery. This isn't quite true as a system, per say Socialism which is what we assume they are talking about, is purely an economic system, not political, so slavery would not be such an aspect that our opponents bring up. Then they make the Appeal to Authority by having Friedman argue for them. We could intern show how bad Friedman's policies where nations perished. In Chile, President Allende was elected and put forth a New Deal like plan and the GDP increased and wealth inequality decreased. The CIA instituted a Coup and replaced him with Pinochet, one of the most ruthless dictators in all of South American history. They had the Chicago Boys, many of the main followers and students of Friedman, take control of Chilean economics. Their GDP shrank 15% and unemployment skyrocketed in many places to 22% [8]. To make things worse, Pinochet wouldn't permit any opposition by executing many opposition and famously throwing people off of helicopters. Is this really the freedom and rights that our opponents are talking about? No, this is a crime against humanity and Friedman's own policies are solely responsible for this. Another aspect of the argument they are using is that slavery is condemned, yet Capitalism is the sole reason that men were enslaved. Slaves allowed the elimination of what would be the labor's wages which allowed further maximizing of profit these nations engage in. Many people even see that this is done when nations outsource overseas to get cheaper labor where places like China have child labor. Lenin had argued that Capitalism requires a sort of cheap labor and explained how they needed colonization in order for them to get a cheap labor sources and more resources that they have exhausted in their nation [9]. This has been done throughout history and has shown to enslave people and strip them of any self-ownership. This goes against everything our opponents bring up in this debate showing that the only way to actually find the ethical choice is a vote in negation. We can see that Truing's decision wasn't completely through Capitalism as there were many barriers to entry and other government agencies and checks that are in place to help regulate the company. As we have brought up in our 2nd Contention, Turing has a monopoly on the drug, showing that it is not completely a free market and there are known alternatives, but the government barriers to entry bar it from entrance which gave them the comfort of being able to raise prices. As a result, it was really done through a Socialist system that they are arguing against. We apologize as we are out of characters and will have to finish addressing the rest of our opponents' arguments in our next round. Sources 1. Freeman, R. Edward (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. 2. (. http://tinyurl.com...)3. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (. http://tinyurl.com...)5. (. http://tinyurl.com...)6. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 7. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 2868. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 9. Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp. 667–766