Working for Eli Lilly & Company
Working for Eli Lilly & Company
William Penn University
1. Discuss Eli Lilly’s Practice from the perspectives of utilitarianism and rights.
Although the practice is to benefit a lot of people with specific dieses, it can cause bodily harm or even dead to the human test subjects. I don’t feel that the harm that could be caused to the test subjects are considered enough, for example what if die, or become cripple, and the drug doesn’t work so it will not benefit anyone.
2. In your judgment, is the policy of using homeless alcoholics for test subjects morally appropriate?
I see it as immoral because they are offering compensation to people that is desperate for the bare necessities of life, in exchange for being “lab rats”, these people are so down on their luck that they are not thinking of the consequences. This is the reason that healthy people that are not desperate for food, and shelter that will not agree to the testing. This also immoral because they are basically risking a life of one human to save another, just because these people are homeless and alcoholics does not make them any less of a human and just because the people that they are attempting to cure are not homeless or alcoholics does not make them any more human than the next person.
3. What Quaker values or issues included in William Penn’s advice relate to this study? Explain how they relate or apply to the study.
The one value that stands out the most to me is equality, because this study shows no equality for the homeless people. In my opinion they are look at as unworthy and worth risking their good health, and or life in exchange for money, food, and shelter. These same compensations were not offered to healthy non-homeless people, and I’m sure that they were offered much better compensations than the homeless people were.
William Penn University
1. Discuss Eli Lilly’s Practice from the perspectives of utilitarianism and rights.
Although the practice is to benefit a lot of people with specific dieses, it can cause bodily harm or even dead to the human test subjects. I don’t feel that the harm that could be caused to the test subjects are considered enough, for example what if die, or become cripple, and the drug doesn’t work so it will not benefit anyone.
2. In your judgment, is the policy of using homeless alcoholics for test subjects morally appropriate?
I see it as immoral because they are offering compensation to people that is desperate for the bare necessities of life, in exchange for being “lab rats”, these people are so down on their luck that they are not thinking of the consequences. This is the reason that healthy people that are not desperate for food, and shelter that will not agree to the testing. This also immoral because they are basically risking a life of one human to save another, just because these people are homeless and alcoholics does not make them any less of a human and just because the people that they are attempting to cure are not homeless or alcoholics does not make them any more human than the next person.
3. What Quaker values or issues included in William Penn’s advice relate to this study? Explain how they relate or apply to the study.
The one value that stands out the most to me is equality, because this study shows no equality for the homeless people. In my opinion they are look at as unworthy and worth risking their good health, and or life in exchange for money, food, and shelter. These same compensations were not offered to healthy non-homeless people, and I’m sure that they were offered much better compensations than the homeless people were.