RUNNING HEAD: Case Study 2 – Ethics 1

Case Study 2 - Ethics

Group 3 – Summer Doak, Emily Ramsey, Sara Wittrock, Rafael Alvis,

Tammy Dunham, Leslie Wiggins

University of Central Oklahoma

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study 2 – Ethics 2

Case Study 2 – Ethics

Traidos Bank is a British financial institute that prided itself with being, “the world’s

leading ethical and sustainable bank,” (pg 143). Offering 13 different funds in which customers

could invest in, they chose these businesses in which to invest in by a strict criteria. Without

meeting each of the six criteria, you would not be one of their accounts. Roche, a Swiss

pharmaceutical company, met all six of the ethical criteria and therefore was added to Traidos’

portfolio of investments. Roche was doing research in China, testing a drug called CellCept. This

drug is used to prevent rejection of organs in transplant patients. However, Roche was

considered unethical by Traidos Bank because they could not account for where these organs for

transplants were coming from. It was believed possibly innocent prisoners were being murdered

so their organs could be harvested for money. Whether it was with consent or not, the company

believed it was under unclear thinking and bad circumstances they would have made this

decision and thus, they were removed from Traidos Bank’s investment portfolio.

1. Explain how utilitarianism might provide a defense for Roche and how a rights-based
ethic might instead condemn Roche’s drug trials in China. Which of these two
approaches is stronger or more reasonable? Explain the reasons for your answer.

Part 1: Utilitarianism is defined by the text on page 78 as “… a view that holds that actions and

policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society.”

A utilitarian would argue that Roche was respecting the Chinese laws by first testing the drugs

on Chinese patients. One could argue that prohibiting the research that Roche was performing

could inhibit future Chinese patients from receiving a drug that could be necessary to sustain life.

Roche’s CellCept had a beneficial plan for the Chinese society in creating a drug to help sustain

life for their specific ethnicity. As a utilitarian, finding a resolution for the greater good is the

most ethical and just decision. The utilitarian might argue that Roche had no control over how
RUNNING HEAD: Case Study 2 – Ethics 3

the organs were harvested. Knowing or not knowing where the organs were originating from

wouldn’t be as important, as long as their end goal of saving lives would be completed.

Part 2: Rights are defined by the text as “individual entitlements to freedom of choice and well-

being, (pg 93).” This may lead a rights based ethic to say that the prisoners from which the

organs were being harvested could not be consenting because they were being held against their

free will. An ethic may also argue that there is no way to know under what conditions the organs

were being removed from such executed prisoners. However since ‘rights’ are up to the

individual, it cannot be determined if the individual is deceased. The conditions of this study are

questionable since there is no way of knowing if the prisoner would of volunteered or declined to

be a part of this study. More so, if the organs are being sold for a monetary profit instead of

research - then this decision would be defined unethical by moral standard.

Part 3: In reference to which viewpoint being the strongest and most reasonable, this is an

extremely controversial issue. Lives are on the line in both situations. Views differ from person

to person and legitimate arguments can be made for both utilitarianism and rights-based. When it

comes to the right-based ethic, Roche was in violation of the prisoner’s human rights. The

company knew that up to ninety percent of organs came from executed prisoners. The company

should have looked into why the prisoner were executed because some of the them were there

because of their religious belief and the different opinions between them and the governments.

One view is that of the rights based ethic. A utilitarian measures utility of the benefits produced

by an action (pg 78). An ethic could prove that many prisoners being held were not criminals.

They could also prove that many organs were being harvested only for money. The ethic has a
RUNNING HEAD: Case Study 2 – Ethics 4

strong and more reasonable case in this situation. Even though most people in China would have

benefited by keeping the drug, the process of testing the drug was tainted by the violation of

basic human rights that even the people using the drug would have despicable. However, on the

other hand, utilitarianism provides a defense for Roche because the company was looking to

benefit the country of China as a whole given that they were in favor of the medicine that

prevented patients from post-transplant organ rejection. This view would have been a strong

decision for society even though if you would only jeopardize the prisoners. The company felt

that “the greater good would be served by going ahead with its drug tests even though many of

the transplanted organs in its test patients were harvested from prisoners (pg 144)”.

2. Is it ethical to continue testing CellCept on its Chinese transplant patients?

As with the previous question, when you are dealing with rights and the betterment of people and

their rights, there is always more than one view. Both sides of the argument are made in this case

as well. In business we must evaluate decisions along ethical lines and we must address whether

it is worth something ethically questionable for the sake of a greater good. CellCept is a drug

designed to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. In order to market CellCept in China,

Roche needed regulatory approval that would only be given after the completion of drug trials in

China Roche made a judgment call based on a utilitarian viewpoint of the situation. He was

aware that the patients he was testing CellCept on were possibly living with these harvested

organs. However, it is not Roche’s concern to understand whether these were innocent or

punishable people were killed for an unjust reason. If the drug was not tested on the Chinese

people, it could not be used on anyone of this country, even those receiving organs from family.
RUNNING HEAD: Case Study 2 – Ethics 5

Chinese legislation prevents pharmaceutical companies from determining the origin of the

transplant organ as in many countries. Even though a percentage of the organs of its test patients

had to have been harvested from prisoners, it was not possible for the company to find out the

source of its Chinese patients’ organs. The issue lies among the Chinese who are murdering for

money. The ethical standard of Roche being considered is almost insignificant considering the

ethical behavior of those who were harvesting organs from innocent people.

On the other hand, Roche was “concerned” of the growing controversy because of their

involvement with transplants operations. Despite this, it was not ethical for Roche to continue

testing. Because Dr. Schwan stated that CellCept was a medicine that had save thousands of

patients’ lives, they should continue using it? The fact that the company was violating peoples’

rights was and still is an unethical practice. When a company suspects that it may be acting

unethically, neglecting to change anything almost escalates the issue.

Ethics is genuinely a subject that has everything to do with the opinion of the person in

charge or the majority vote. We can all give and let our viewpoints be considered. It seems

almost a toss-up sometimes and the outcome is not always conclusive with our own view. The

best thing is to hold on to your morals and make choices to the best of your ability.
RUNNING HEAD: Case Study 2 – Ethics 6

Reference

Velasquez, M.G. (2012). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (7th ed.). Pearson.