$100,000 – Cost to Stay Alive

Link to article

            This article sheds light on pharmaceutical companies and how they price some of their most sought after drugs at an astronomically high price that is unaffordable for most people. A recent paper published by American Society of Hematology’s medical journal Blood, looks at the cost of drugs that are used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) by increasing the 10-year survival rate at 80%. However, the cost for the medication is in the six figures, making it extremely difficult for patients with no insurance to obtain. One example of pharmaceutical companies naming their own price on medications is Gleevic, which is a miracle cancer drug that has dramatically increased the survival rate for patients with CML. Initially, the drug was priced at $30,000/year, then took a dramatic increase over the past decade to more than $76,000/year. The pharmaceutical companies blame the insurance companies for the hike in prices, but according to this article, it seems like they are taking advantage of the high demand of these life-saving drugs to increase their profit margins. Physicians hope that pharmaceutical companies will take action and make their costs affordable to give everyone a fighting chance to survive.

            Pharmaceutical companies understandably need funds from their sales to put into research and development in order to continue making effective drugs for the infinite amount if diseases and illnesses that exist. However, it is clear that the companies are hiking their prices to unreasonable amounts knowing that people have no other alternative in order to survive. While pharma companies do give out free drugs to some patients that are unable to afford the medications, there is still a large patient population that continues to struggle to meet the high cost of these life-saving drugs. The practices of these companies seem to be unethical, as it is causing extreme hardships for the majority of people who need to be on the medication. In extremely unfortunate cases, patients are not able to afford the drugs altogether and are forced to suffer. What changes can be made to lower their costs? Would the government need to get involved?

Link to article

The recent incident at Rutgers University and former basketball coach Mike Rice has the public questioning the ethical practices of the leadership team in the organization. This blog entry by Keith Lee Rupp highlights the fact that Rutgers University is ironically the home of the prestigious Institute for Ethical Leadership (IEL), which recently received a 2.6 million dollar grant from the Prudential Foundation. This blog post notes that there are three broad levels of ethical behavior: basic compliance of rules, sense of social fairness, and principled response. The fact that students had been complaining about Mike Rice and his abusive coaching approach before the video was leaked suggests that leadership was already aware of his behavior but did not do anything about it. Only after the public caught wind of the incident did Rutgers decide to terminate the coach and take action. They failed to carry out the third level of ethical behavior, which is making the right choice even when nobody is watching or aware. In other words, the organization lacked integrity in their actions.

The IEL's mission statement includes a line that states, "Leaders must be prepared to deal the more complicated and subtle critical care thinking and decision-making processes required to create an organizational culture where ethical practice and behavior become habit". It is clear that the organization did not act according to these standards and the fact that they took the appropriate measures after the incident was highly publicized made their response seem insincere. It also devalues the IEL and the work that they are trying to accomplish. The PR team at Rutgers needs to ensure that the leaders are re-trained on the fundamental ethical decision making processes in order to prevent future instances that can lead to even further damage for the organization.

Ex-Con Turned Professor

Link to article

In recent news, there has been controversy over Kathy Boudin, an ex-con who was convicted of murder, working at Columbia University as an adjunct professor in the school of Social Work. Boudin was a part of a radical group called Weather Underground and was involved in a 1981 armed robbery which took the life of two police officers and one security guard. She was convicted of murder in 1984 and was sentenced to 22 years in jail. She was released from prison on parole in 2003 and was hired by Columbia University in 2008 to teach coursework on re-entering society after incarceration. Although she has been with the organization for the past five years, media outlets recently caught wind of the news and there has been uproar from members of the community, especially from family members of the victims of the murder case. They claim that she is not remorseful of her actions and that she is utilizing her position to push for release of her accomplices that still remain in prison. On the flip side, there are others, including her students that feel as though she is an excellent professor with high evaluations year after year.

Life after prison is never easy, especially for those who have been in there for long periods of time. As a society, we are taught that the ethical thing to do is to give these people a fair chance at life again. By Columbia hiring this woman and giving her the opportunity to lead a normal life once again, it seems like they were doing what was morally just. However, in the viewpoint of the family members of the victims, it is completely understandable as to why they would be upset with her re-entering society and holding such a prestigious position. They have suffered for decades due to the crime that Boudin is responsible for and it is understandably difficult for them to accept it. It is difficult to determine how Columbia University should respond to the backlash they have been receiving. Is it ethical to stand by Boudin or to take a different approach? It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Plan B Available to Girls of All Ages

Link to Article

A federal judge on Friday ordered that morning-after pill Plan B be made available over the counter for children of all ages. Currently, girls 16 and under require a prescription to obtain this hormone filled emergency contraceptive. The judge gave the Food & Drug Administration 30 days to lift the age restriction on the the pill. As the court awaits the FDA's response to the order, there is much debate on whether it is the right decision to have young children easily access the pill without having to go through their physician or parental guardian. Dr. Manny Alvarez speaks out about the reasons why this can be potentially harmful to young girls in terms of what the pill can do to their bodies and the message that it sends out. According to Dr. Alvarez, Plan B may lead to side effects including nausea, headaches, and menstrual changes. The effects can be even worse on an adolescent children who have menstrual changes to begin with. Emergency contraceptive is intended to be used for true emergencies and not as a regular method of preventing pregnancy. Without proper sex education, it is difficult for young adolescents to make responsible decisions. Furthermore, Dr. Alvarez feels that the easy access to Plan B fails to teach young children about respecting their bodies and protecting themselves against sexually transmitted diseases.

The argument for allowing Plan B to be easily accessible as an OTC drug for people of all ages is that it will help prevent unwanted pregnancies in young adolescents and teenagers. However, do children that are as young as 11 years old have the maturity to make proper decisions on their own? Shouldn't a pediatrician be involved in educating them and guiding their decision making process? The emergency contraceptive is loaded with a high level of hormones and should not be taken regularly. If there are fully informed grown adults who irresponsibly take the pill regularly as a contraceptive, what is to stop a developing child from misusing the OTC drug that is so readily available? Birth control pills still require a prescription and healthcare providers can not even administer aspirin to underage children without parental consent. It seems like a final decision will not be made soon but these are factors that should certainly be considered.

Soda Ban or Psychological Manipulation?

Link to Article I

Link to Article II

Mayor Bloomberg's supersized soda ban proposal, which would have prohibited eateries from selling non-diet sodas larger that 16 ounces was rejected by the Supreme Court earlier this week. In order to protect the welfare of the poor communities who are suffering from the obesity epidemic, the mayor finds the ban on sodas a moral obligation. At a press conference on Monday, Bloomberg said "we have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other, to save the lives of ourselves, our families, our friends." He will continue to press the issue and fight against the obesity crisis, which is expected to claim the lives of 70,000 Americans this year.

In an article by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow, he believes that it was wise for the Supreme Court to reject Mayor Bloomberg's proposal. According to Ablow, instead of outlawing supersized sodas, tapping into people's inherint desire to be accepted and respected by the community is a more effective way of having obese individuals refrain from picking up a large soda. Instead of spending money on enforcing the soda ban, he thinks the money would be better spent on billboards to psychologically affect the way obese people feel about drinking soda in public. The idea is to have people be shameful and self conscious of drinking 32 ounce sodas so they would opt for the smaller size. This way, they are still acting on their own free will but still making the wiser decision.

The story of Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to enforce the soda ban is ethically questionable. His intentions seem to be valid, but how can one justify taking away people's rights to eat and drink what they want? Where does the line get drawn? Once the soda ban effect, what would be the next item that people would be prohibited from consuming?  On the other hand, the number of obese individuals in the US and New York City is alarming and leaders should be making efforts to get Americans on a healthier track. In any regard, Dr. Ablow's idea of psychologically manipulating individuals to stop drinking supersized sodas seems ethically wrong in my opinion. While it is important to educate the community on the harmful effects of supersized sodas and obesity, psychological manipulation can lead to further issues such as depression and low self esteem. By making people feel shameful of their actions, it sends out the wrong message to the public and children. The more positive way to affect people's psyche is to educate and promote healthy actions, not reprimand them for their actions.

Fired for Being Gay in 2013

Link to Article

Andre Cooley, a gay man from Mississippi was allegedly fired from his job as a corrections officer due to his sexual orientation. 27 year old Cooley managed to keep the fact that he was gay a secret from his employer and colleagues until one day, when he called the cops due to a violent altercation with his boyfriend and his colleague showed up at the scene. Three days following the incident, Cooley was fired from his job. His employer denies that he was let go due to his sexual orientation and instead argues that it was because of his unprofessional behavior that reflects negatively on the organization. However, Cooley was off-duty at the time of the incident was a victim in the case. Even further, Cooley claims that he was told directly from a supervisor that he was fired for being gay.

After Cooley was fired from his job, he immediately contacted local lawyers to take on his case, but he had no luck because Mississippi is one of the 29 states in the US that do not protect discrimination based on sexual orientation in the work place. Discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, national origin, and disability are all covered under the federal law, but in these 29 states, sexual orientation and gender identity are not. This means that an employer has the right to not hire or fire people simply because they are gay. This is astounding considering that our current president supports gay rights and marriage and the majority of the general public believe that the LGBT community should have the same rights as anyone else. After investigation, Cooley was eventually granted his job back on the basis that his employer is a federal government and firing an individual for being gay goes against the constitution. However, if it were any other organization that was not apart of the government, it is likely that Cooley would not have been able to win this battle and continue to be out of a job.

This case illustrates how an action can be legal and ethically wrong at the same time. Based on the laws of Mississippi, employers can legally get away with refusing or firing employees simply based on their sexual orientation. Regardless of their work performance, intelligence, talent and excellent work ethics, sexual orientation can take precedence over one's career. Cooley was reportedly an excellent worker before he was fired and after he got his job back, but that did not stop his employer from immediately canning him when his sexual orientation was revealed. The US has dealt with unjust discrimination for decades and it is unbelievable that it still goes on today in 2013. Although it is legally acceptable, organizations must follow their personal code of ethics and mission to determine whether discrimination in any form is morally just.

Gambling or Business?

Link to Article

Intrade is an online betting site that allows people to make predictions on the outcome of hundreds of actual events throughout the world.   Similar to how stock exchanges show the value of a company share and futures show the value of commodities; prediction markets show the value in the probability of a future event.  Users on this site can buy or sell shares in a specific event from other players in the market and either make a profit or take a loss.  The company was on-track to having a successful year in 2012, until the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a lawsuit against Intrade in November, claiming that the Ireland-based company was operating an illegal online business. Intrade immediately banned all its U.S members, but this may cause trouble for the company’s future since they U.S users make up a majority of the site’s business.

However, in March of 2013, New Jersey became the 3rd state to pass an online gambling bill, which reverses the policy made by the US Department of Justice which stated that online gaming was illegal across state lines, since 1961. This turn of events and sudden change of viewpoint on this industry has presented a new way for Intrade to revive as a predictions betting site. The CFTC’s main issue with the site is its involvement in betting on currency prices and a few current events, but nothing related to wagers on politics, which has been a large source of the site’s activity. Also, Intrade also has an opportunity to obtain a license in Nevada, which allows over 20 types of games and continue it’s business with minimal restrictions.

Although Intrade has been portrayed as a gambling site, it wants to present itself more like a market or exchange, having been founded by a former stock trader.  I believe that regardless of the purpose behind the business, it presents and portrays itself with the same qualities as a casino. This may pave the way for very dangerous and potential unethical issues.  Banning of such inter-state and overseas gaming transactions has been to deter severe negative social impacts, associated with gambling addictions. Also, these used to only be limited to traveling to casinos and narrowed down to a specific set of games. A site like Intrade, unleashes a realm of possibilities which allow for wagering on anything from what the weather will be like in a week, who wins the next presidential election, or if the United States will bomb a certain country in a certain year.  I cannot help but see a slippery slope that leads to a serious social dysfunction and addiction that may appeal to a larger population that has typically not been exposed to gambling.  These ethical issues need to be closely monitored and addressed before allowing any more states to reverse the original policy made.