Estrella, Clarenz Mae C. 09/18/16
4TE-4 EEE
Case 1: Working for Eli Lilly and Company
a. Discuss Eli Lilly's practice from the perspective of categorical imperatives.
In the perspective of categorical imperative Eli Lilly Company practice is not right action. Based on the explanation of categorical imperative we should not treat people as a tool or an object. We must treat other person as a person. Eli Lilly and company motive is to provide enormous benefits to the society by testing the untested drug to the group of "volunteers" which are the homeless alcoholics.
U: What if every pharmaceutical company will use people or homeless alcoholics to test the untested drugs to be approved by FDA?
R: What if i am the homeless alcoholic, will it be okay for me to be used as a test subject?
b. Is there really "informed consent" here? Is the decision to participate a "truly voluntary and uncoerced decision"? Explain your answer.
I think there is no informed consent, it may be sound like I am a judger but as it says in the case group of …show more content…
Do you think Tuskegee scientist is justified for making the experiment?
I think that Tuskegee scientist doing that experiment is unjustifiable since illiterate African American sharecroppers did not give consent and not well informed of their diagnosis, and they were undergo treatment. They are being deceived by Tuskegee scientist.
b. How would Kant react to this issue? Why?
Kant may react to this issue by saying that Tuskegee scientist is motivated by self-interest. He may also say that it is morally wrong even though they had good intention in making or perfecting a drug that may help the society, because they are motivated by conducting a study and using the illiterate African American in their experiment. They treat people not as people but instead as a tool. The illiterate African American where not informed and not willing, they did not have freedom to decide for
4TE-4 EEE
Case 1: Working for Eli Lilly and Company
a. Discuss Eli Lilly's practice from the perspective of categorical imperatives.
In the perspective of categorical imperative Eli Lilly Company practice is not right action. Based on the explanation of categorical imperative we should not treat people as a tool or an object. We must treat other person as a person. Eli Lilly and company motive is to provide enormous benefits to the society by testing the untested drug to the group of "volunteers" which are the homeless alcoholics.
U: What if every pharmaceutical company will use people or homeless alcoholics to test the untested drugs to be approved by FDA?
R: What if i am the homeless alcoholic, will it be okay for me to be used as a test subject?
b. Is there really "informed consent" here? Is the decision to participate a "truly voluntary and uncoerced decision"? Explain your answer.
I think there is no informed consent, it may be sound like I am a judger but as it says in the case group of …show more content…
Do you think Tuskegee scientist is justified for making the experiment?
I think that Tuskegee scientist doing that experiment is unjustifiable since illiterate African American sharecroppers did not give consent and not well informed of their diagnosis, and they were undergo treatment. They are being deceived by Tuskegee scientist.
b. How would Kant react to this issue? Why?
Kant may react to this issue by saying that Tuskegee scientist is motivated by self-interest. He may also say that it is morally wrong even though they had good intention in making or perfecting a drug that may help the society, because they are motivated by conducting a study and using the illiterate African American in their experiment. They treat people not as people but instead as a tool. The illiterate African American where not informed and not willing, they did not have freedom to decide for