The case discusses the feud between Novartis, a huge pharmaceutical company, and India, over the patent grant for Glivec – a medicine that combats leukemia. While the World Trade Organization (WTO) has laws that are dedicated for the protection of intellectual property rights, there are also laws in India that allows India to produce and sell low-cost medicines. Unless the new medicine has substantial difference on effects, this medicine will not be patented. Thus, the court’s ruling is that Novartis is not granted the patent for the new Glivec formulation, and India can proceed with selling the medicine at an affordable rate.
The main ethical issue at hand is whether or not the court’s decision is morally right. The decision has different …show more content…
The court’s decision is inclined towards the pleasure of India: that with drugs made affordable and accessible, more people’s lives will be saved. It seems like the better decision because, after all, what value does research have compared to invaluable human lives? But this is where the flaw lies. It is not just research per se that will be lost. It is the possibility of curing more diseases, of sustaining more lives, not only in the present but also in the future. The heart of Utilitarianism lies in the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” which establishes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness.” [Mill 1979: 7] It is not simply the happiness of one person that is measured, but the happiness of everyone is considered. In Mill’s words, it is the “greatest amount of happiness altogether.” [Mill 1979: 11] Thus, if patent was granted, and research encouraged, studies will produce results that can cure hundred more diseases and million more lives. It may bring unhappiness to some right now, but it the long-run, more families and friends can be saved. Not only Indians but more people from other countries can be saved. There is smaller amount of pain and greater amount of happiness. It is in this totality of happiness measured that we can say if an act is right. Mill then would say that the court’s decision was
The main ethical issue at hand is whether or not the court’s decision is morally right. The decision has different …show more content…
The court’s decision is inclined towards the pleasure of India: that with drugs made affordable and accessible, more people’s lives will be saved. It seems like the better decision because, after all, what value does research have compared to invaluable human lives? But this is where the flaw lies. It is not just research per se that will be lost. It is the possibility of curing more diseases, of sustaining more lives, not only in the present but also in the future. The heart of Utilitarianism lies in the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” which establishes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness.” [Mill 1979: 7] It is not simply the happiness of one person that is measured, but the happiness of everyone is considered. In Mill’s words, it is the “greatest amount of happiness altogether.” [Mill 1979: 11] Thus, if patent was granted, and research encouraged, studies will produce results that can cure hundred more diseases and million more lives. It may bring unhappiness to some right now, but it the long-run, more families and friends can be saved. Not only Indians but more people from other countries can be saved. There is smaller amount of pain and greater amount of happiness. It is in this totality of happiness measured that we can say if an act is right. Mill then would say that the court’s decision was