Another reason why Dr. Kim should not prescribe Paxaflora to his patients with congestive heart failure like Alex is that it goes against the rights of the patients and his guardians. His parents specifically wanted Alex to be comfortable, without the possible harsh side affects that come from Paxaflora. They have a right to know about those side affects. And they also have the right to decide if they even want their son on this new drug. Even though could help Alex, but it is not Dr. Kim’s decision to make; it’s his parents.
18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, was influential in the understanding of rights. Kant thought that everyone has worth, that humanity to “be treated as an end, not merely as a means” (Velasquez, 1990). And by treating …show more content…
Kim will choose, there will be some disadvantages. Whether it is a virtual approach, utilitarian approach, rights approach, or common good approach someone in the situation will not have their way. Analyzing the case study, it is clear that the ethical dilemma is that Dr. Kim can prescribe the drug and give into the bribes given by the company, while also knowing that the drug has side effects that the patient would like to avoid, or he can decide not to prescribe the drug and risk upsetting the pharmaceutical company and his boss. Mr. Smith, the pharmaceutical company representative, is very determined to make sure that Dr. Kim prescribes the drug Paxaflora. The pharmaceutical company has even gone as far as paying Dr. Kim’s boss to prescribe and promote the drug. Special gifts and handouts were given to Dr. Kim to help persuade him into promoting the particular drug for the company. Dr. Kim is basically being forced to prescribe a drug that might not be the best choice for his patient. This ethical dilemma brings a lot of pressure on the doctor. Pharmaceutical bribery is ethically problematic in today’s world and doctors should be aware of that. Knowing that congestive heart failure is a serious matter, especially in a young child like Alex, Dr. Kim should only consider the patient's’ needs only. The pharmaceutical company compromised the full understanding of the drug and clouded the doctor’s mind with bribery tactics. Dr. Kim has …show more content…
Kim to make is to turn down Apativ’s offers and not prescribe Paxaflora to Alex. But by taking pieces from each ethical decision making approach, he is able to make the decision. From the utilitarian approach, Dr. Kim can take away that it could be unjust to prescribe the drug. His view has been effected by outside factors like Apativ and Dr. Grey. He is not solely thinking about the patient. There is more harm than good done to everyone affected by the decision. He can also see that it is against the greater good to prescribe the drug. There is a possibly that the drug could harm Alex and he should not risk that chance. From the virtue approach, he can see that he should turn down the bribes from Apativ. He can see it is wrong and against his better judgment & character. As a doctor, he should have a strong self-image and be able to follow your morals without being bribed out of them. Dr. Kim should know that being persuaded by gifts and other bribes is very unethical in a hospital setting. And from the rights approach, Dr. Kim can see that he should discuss this process with Alex’s parents. Outside companies should not cloud a doctor’s judgment when prescribing drugs to patients. He does not need to make one clear-cut decision but more so a combination of the choices he is given. He can take bits and pieces from his choices and make the best decision. The one that will appease everyone involved. Dr. Kim should also not worry