- Provide an example of a time a friend, co-worker or relative tried to persuade you of a moral claim. What evidence did they use to convince you? Did you do research on their evidence or premises? Why or why not?
- After considering the Carl Elliot case study, describe why “pharmaceutical propaganda” could be dangerous and refer to at least one of the ethical theories we have discussed thus far to justify your position.
Please use the following websites as they were given by the instructor to answer the assignment
- As you complete the reading, consider: Does research matter? Are premises provable? What is evidence? Klenk, M. (2019). “Evolutionary Ethics.” In G. Matthews (Ed.), Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics (pp. 76-88) (Website) (PDF )
- Elliott, C. (2014). “Relationships between physicians and Pharma: Why physicians should not accept money from the pharmaceutical industry. ” Neurology. Clinical Practice, 4(2), 164–167. (PDF)
- Maisel, E. R. (2016). “Carl Elliott on the Dark Side of Medicine.” (Website)
Expert Solution Preview
Question 1: Provide an example of a time a friend, co-worker or relative tried to persuade you of a moral claim. What evidence did they use to convince you? Did you do research on their evidence or premises? Why or why not?
Introduction:
Throughout our lives, we encounter people who hold different beliefs and values from our own. These differences can lead to debates and arguments, especially when it comes to moral claims. In this question, we are asked to describe a time when someone tried to persuade us of a moral claim and whether we did any research on their evidence or premises.
Answer:
One time, a friend tried to persuade me that it was morally wrong to eat meat. They presented a variety of reasons, such as the environmental impact of livestock, the suffering of animals, and the health risks associated with meat consumption. To convince me, they cited numerous studies and articles supporting their claims.
While I found their arguments to be compelling, I did not immediately accept their position. Instead, I did my own research to verify their evidence and premises. I looked into the studies they had cited, as well as opposing viewpoints on the topic. Ultimately, I came to my own conclusion that while there were valid arguments for reducing meat consumption, it was not inherently morally wrong to consume animal products.
I believe that it is important to critically evaluate claims and evidence presented by others, especially when it comes to moral issues. While someone may present compelling evidence, it is up to each individual to weigh that evidence against their own values and beliefs.
Question 2: After considering the Carl Elliot case study, describe why “pharmaceutical propaganda” could be dangerous and refer to at least one of the ethical theories we have discussed thus far to justify your position.
Introduction:
The pharmaceutical industry plays a critical role in healthcare, developing and producing medications that save lives and improve health outcomes. However, there is also the potential for the industry to engage in unethical practices, such as using propaganda to manipulate public opinion and influence doctors’ prescribing behaviors. In this question, we are asked to describe why “pharmaceutical propaganda” could be dangerous and refer to an ethical theory to justify our position.
Answer:
Pharmaceutical propaganda can be dangerous because it undermines the informed consent of patients, creates conflicts of interest for healthcare providers, and can ultimately harm patient health outcomes. In the Carl Elliot case study, we see how pharmaceutical companies used various tactics to influence doctors, such as funding research studies and providing gifts and meals.
From a deontological perspective, pharmaceutical propaganda is morally wrong because it violates the principle of autonomy. Autonomy is the idea that individuals have a right to make decisions about their own lives, and that these decisions should be informed and free from coercion. When pharmaceutical companies use propaganda to influence medical professionals, they are denying patients the opportunity to make informed decisions about their health.
From a consequentialist perspective, pharmaceutical propaganda is also morally wrong because it can lead to negative outcomes for patients. When doctors are influenced by propaganda rather than patient needs, they may prescribe medications that are not appropriate or may cause harm. This can ultimately lead to negative health outcomes and reduced quality of life for patients.
In conclusion, pharmaceutical propaganda is a dangerous practice that undermines patient autonomy and can lead to negative health outcomes. From both a deontological and consequentialist perspective, we can see why this practice is ethically problematic and should be avoided.