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

Stakeholder Theory: (Util and the idea of monopoly will be dealt with below.) Turing allows those without insurance to get the drug for no cost. For those who are insured, they have to pay no more than $10 for a prescription. Insurance companies, a symptom of a mixed economy that our opponents are arguing against, are the only ones harmed by the price increase. [1] In Martin Shkreli’s own words, “We're dramatically increasing the access to Daraprim, lowering copays, giving away more drug for free... half of the drug we give away is for $1, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.” [2] Given these points, even if Util or Ethic of Care is accepted as the framework for this debate, our opponents have not shown that the impacts they cite actually occur. If Turing practically gives the drug away, the poor are not harmed, and thus our opponents are left without an argument. Utilitarianism I must refer my opponents to our constructive case, wherein we show that bodily autonomy is a prerequisite for any ethical theory. Without self-ownership, the right to exercise one’s mind and obtain property, the right to sovereignty, there can be no talk of the “greater good”. Since our opponents have Market Monopoly It is no secret that Turing raised the price of Daraprim a great deal, so my opponent’s referral to the price hike as a “gotcha” point is unusual. We know that Daraprim is much more expensive now than it was before. That is exactly what we’re defending. Restating what Turing did is not an argument for its immorality. Talk about how Turing “could” lower the price of the drug is completely superfluous without a positive argument showing that they have an obligation to. We feel that we have conclusively shown that such an obligation is nothing more than a spook, and therefore, even if the price hike was 200,000%, Turing would still be morally white. The real issue posed here is whether or not, since the federal government restricts trade, producers still have the right to do what they will with their products. The answer, we feel, is a resounding “yes”. Do not get it twisted: the fact that the federal government requires new drugs to get through an immense amount of red tape is undesirable and immoral. This is not the question at hand. Turing is not the aggressor here. Turing did not make the laws, does not stop competitors from entering the market, and, therefore, is not to blame for the state of the system. Those rotten elements of the U.S. mixed economy are to blame, and should be blamed. However, Turing has done nothing but work within the framework it was given. Assume that, tomorrow, all regulations fell away. Would Turing’s actions still be immoral? I think not. In a free society, what they did would be completely acceptable, and therefore the fact that this is not a free society only amplifies the morality of their actions. They are doing that which they would have the right to do in a fully capitalist U.S.; they are making due with what they have to simulate the proper way the world should work. Again, blame the system, not Turing. Any blood is on the hands of the federal government, and shifting the responsibility to Turing only gives a free pass to the regulators. Ethic of Care Our opponents has nowhere justified the “Ethic of Care”, and have instead merely asserted a moral duty where it should not be. Even if such a duty is proven, Daraprim, as argued earlier, would still be available. ===Rebuttals=== R1: Capitalism and Freedom Our opponents continue to build strawmans; they claim that slavery is a “result” of capitalism. Because of the desire to earn more and more money, they argue, capitalists would pounce at any chance to gain labour without paying wages. What my opponents do not recognise, though, is that this is not allowed under laissez-faire capitalism. Quoting our definition of capitalism from the last round: “Capitalism is the system in which individuals are given the right to pursue their own happiness through the exercise of their right to property - property over the self and over the fruits of the self’s labour.” This clearly would exclude slavery, child labour (children must be protected until the stage where they can rationally exercise bodily autonomy), and Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship. All of the above are non-capitalist systems, exactly the kinds of things we are arguing against. In this way, our opponents has made our point for us. A note on Chile: Even if the economy was hurt in the short term, this is irrelevant to our case, for our case rests on the idea of inalienable human rights; the right to a job or to a good economy is not one of these. Where these rights are violated, capitalism does not exist, thus answering Pinochet. As has been explained, our case does not require the U.S. to have a capitalist system; it only requires that the actions Turing have taken be acceptable if the U.S. did have such a system. Given this, and our elucidation of the foundation of morality as a whole, the resolution stands affirmed. - EXTENSION: SUPPLY AND DEMAND Our opponents have dropped the argument that, by raising the price of Daraprim, Turing has incentivized competition, and, therefore, improvement of treatment options. [1] http://www.daraprimdirect.com... [2]