Case Study: Daraprim Price Hike
Discussion Questions
Q1. People may harm others in a number of ways-physically, psychologically or emotionally, financially, and even reputationally. In what ways did Shkreli's decision to raise the price of Daraprim so substantially harm others? Explain.
Q2. Some believe that harm to others can be justified if the person harmed gave consent. Is that the case here? Why or why not?
Q3. Some believe that harm to others can be justified if the harm caused was part of the harmer's role-related responsibility. Is that the case here? Why or why not?
Q4. Some believe that harm to others can be justified to prevent an even greater harm to the community as a whole. Can Shkreli claim that is the case here? Explain.
Q5. If Turing's profits were directly invested in research and development that produced a new miracle drug, would any of your answers to the above questions change? Explain.
Q6. Do you think it is ever ethically justifiable to raise the price of a drug at a rate like Daraprim? Why or why not? For what reasons do you think the price of a drug could reasonably be increased? Explain.
Q7. Shkreli claimed to be a "Robin Hood" and that profits from Daraprim would be used to develop new and better drugs. Do you agree with Shkreli's defense of the price hike? Why or why not?
Q8. In what ways did rationalizations facilitate the rise in price of Daraprim? Explain.
Q9. As Max Nisen pointed out, the increase in the price of Daraprim was indicative of larger problems in the pharmaceutical industry. Other companies have similarly raised the price of drugs. To what degree do you think pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to act ethically within the larger industry? How would a pharmaceutical company act ethically in this context?
Q10. How can companies protect against profit-driven rationalizations? How should a pharmaceutical company balance profits to continue research and development while keeping drug prices accessible for consumers? Explain.