Answer 1: Utilitarianism is as a view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society. A utilitarian would argue that Roche was respecting the Chinese laws by first testing the drugs on Chinese patients. One could argue that prohibiting the research that Roche was performing could inhibit future Chinese patients from receiving a drug that could be necessary to sustain life. Roche’s Cell Cept had a beneficial …show more content…
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 Cept is a drug designed to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. In order to market Cell Cept in China, Roche needed regulatory approval that would only be given after the completion of drug trials in China Roche made a judgment call based on a utilitarian viewpoint of the situation. He was aware that the patients he was testing Cell Cept on were possibly living with these harvested organs. However, it is not Roche’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 Roche being considered is almost insignificant considering the ethical behavior of those who were harvesting organs from innocent people.
On the other side, Roche was