Morality in a Market: Where Profit Trumps Ethics

The agonising scenario of a loved one’s health hanging in the balance, coupled with the desperation of unaffordable medication, often leads to the ethical quandary: is it morally acceptable to steal medicine? But focusing solely on the morality of the act obscures a more profound question: is it ethical for a system to create circumstances where stealing medicine is a necessity?

This reality isn’t just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a harsh truth for millions globally. The ethical responsibility, then, shifts from solely judging the individual’s desperate act to scrutinising the system that created such a scenario. By placing life-saving drugs behind financial barriers, do we not force individuals into impossible choices, driving them towards acts of desperation like theft? Judging individuals in such circumstances is simplistic and misses the larger ethical failing — the systemic inaccessibility of healthcare.

Framing the issue as a societal failure, not a personal moral failing, prompts a more nuanced and impactful discussion. When lifesaving medicines are priced beyond the reach of many, they essentially become a luxury, not a basic human right. This creates a breeding ground for desperation, where individuals are forced to choose between their loved one’s health and upholding the law.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant, known for his deontological ethics, emphasised the importance of universal moral principles and acting based on duty rather than consequences. He highlighted the pitfalls of hypothetical imperatives, actions only justifiable in specific situations, as they could lead to inconsistencies and contradictions. He emphasised the importance of universalisability in ethical decision-making. In the context of medicine, Kant’s principles might condemn the act itself, regardless of the motive. However, his emphasis on universalisability compels us to ask if we would condemn all instances of taking something essential for survival, even if deemed illegal. Would our judgment differ if the thief were stealing food, not medicine?

This thought experiment exposes the limitations of rigid moral frameworks when faced with desperate realities. This translates to questioning the ethics of a system that prioritises profit over basic human rights like access to healthcare. When essential medicines are priced beyond the reach of many, stealing becomes a “natural” option for those facing imminent loss, contradicting Kant’s principle of universalisability. And yet, his concept of humanity as an end in itself reminds us that every individual, regardless of their economic background, deserves access to basic necessities like healthcare. Denying them this fundamental right contradicts Kant’s core principle of respecting human dignity.

Globally, people who could not afford the exorbitant prices of medicines to saved loved ones have resorted to extreme measures. An Indian farmer who sold his kidney to afford his daughter’s cancer treatment exemplifies the stark realities of this ethical dilemma. Another father, in 2007, when faced with his daughter’s life-threatening illness and the exorbitant cost of her medication, stole the drug to save her life. While his actions were deemed illegal, the public outcry and eventual leniency from the court highlighted the societal unease with a system that prioritises profit over basic human needs. His act, though legally wrong, stemmed from a deeply human instinct to protect loved ones, forcing us to confront the ethical grey areas surrounding survival and desperation.

Consider also the case of a Canadian man who stole an HIV drug for his dying wife in the early 2000s. The exorbitant cost of the medication forced him into this act of desperation, highlighting the ethical dilemma: should he prioritise his wife’s life, even through illegal means, or accept her death due to an unaffordable treatment? This case sparked public outrage, prompting discussions about the ethical responsibility of pharmaceutical companies and governments to ensure access to essential medicines.

This desperation often breeds situations like the recent arrest of Martin Shkreli, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who infamously raised the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000%. Such actions, driven by greed and profiteering, exacerbate the ethical crisis by placing life-saving treatments beyond the reach of many who need them most. Shkreli’s actions directly contradict Kant’s categorical imperative, which emphasises treating others as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. By prioritising profit over patient well-being, Shkreli’s actions exemplify the ethical failings within a system that allows such practices. This blatant profiteering from essential medication exposes the ethical bankruptcy of a system that allows individuals to exploit vulnerabilities for personal gain. Shkreli’s actions, while legal, represent a moral failing. It is within this context that we must evaluate the actions of those driven to steal medicine — are they not, in a way, victims of a larger system that prioritises profit over human life?

Unaffordable healthcare disproportionately impacts marginalised communities, creating a cycle of poverty and ill health. Is it ethical to create a system where basic healthcare becomes a luxury, forcing individuals into impossible choices between life and legality? Can a society truly claim to be just when essential medicines remain out of reach for a significant portion of its population? Access to healthcare shouldn’t be a privilege based on wealth; it should be a fundamental right.

Criminalising acts like stealing medicine also reinforces existing inequalities. Individuals facing poverty and illness are often already marginalised, and labelling them as criminals further disadvantages them. The ethical implications extend beyond the immediate crisis. When individuals are forced to steal medicine, they risk legal repercussions, further compounding their struggles. This not only creates a cycle of desperation but also undermines trust in the healthcare system, hindering overall public health outcomes.

Instead of solely judging individuals caught in the throes of desperation, we must shift our focus to the systemic issues that create such situations. By prioritising accessibility and affordability, we can move towards a healthcare system that upholds Kant’s principles of universalisability and respect for human dignity. The pharmaceutical industry plays a crucial role. While research and development costs are significant, the current pricing often goes far beyond recouping these costs, driven by profit maximisation strategies. Efforts should be directed towards ensuring equitable access to healthcare and affordable medicines. This requires advocating for transparent pricing regulations, promoting generic drug development, and exploring alternative funding models that prioritise health over profit. By prioritising affordability and accessibility of medicine, we can alleviate the pressure that forces individuals into impossible choices. This involves:

Reframing the Narrative: Redirecting the focus from individual blame to systemic accountability, highlighting the ethical implications of pharmaceutical companies that prioritise profits over people’s lives. Shifting the ethical discourse fosters a more sustainable solution. While individual acts of desperation might offer temporary relief, addressing the root cause of inaccessibility will create lasting change. Focusing on systemic reform encourages collaborative efforts towards a just and equitable healthcare system, where no one is forced to choose between morality and saving a loved one’s life. Intellectual property rights and patent laws, while intended to incentivise innovation, can sometimes create barriers to access.

Restricting generic alternatives and extending patent monopolies allows pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices, knowing that patients have limited options. High drug prices often stem from an imbalance of power. Pharmaceutical companies, driven by profit maximisation, leverage patents and market monopolies to inflate prices, leaving individuals and governments with limited bargaining power. Life-saving treatments become luxury goods, disproportionately impacting the less fortunate. Blaming individuals while ignoring the power structures controlling access perpetuates an unfair system and overlooks the responsibility of those benefiting from it.

Promoting Universal Healthcare: Advocating for healthcare systems that guarantee equitable access to essential medicines, regardless of socioeconomic status. This could involve government-funded healthcare, subsidised medication programs, or price regulations for essential drugs. Comprehensive healthcare coverage, encompassing essential medications, should be a global goal. This will ensure individuals don’t face impossible choices between affording medication and basic necessities. Implementing universal healthcare will ensure everyone has access to affordable medications, regardless of their income.

Ethical Pricing Practices: Encouraging pharmaceutical companies to adopt ethical pricing models that prioritise affordability and accessibility over exorbitant profits. This could involve transparent pricing structures, research and development funding tied to public health needs, and open access to essential drug patents. Streamlining the approval process for generic drugs and promoting competition can significantly reduce costs. Robust regulations can prevent price gouging and ensure transparency in drug development and pricing. This can empower individuals and governments to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable. This could involve tiered pricing based on a country’s economic capacity, compulsory licensing for essential medicines, and fostering competition through generic alternatives. Public-private partnerships and alternative funding models can incentivise innovation without relying solely on exorbitant drug prices.

By addressing the root causes of inaccessibility, we can create a system where individuals are not forced into impossible choices between their loved ones’ lives and morality. It’s about recognising the inherent value of human life and ensuring essential healthcare becomes a fundamental right, not a privilege accessible only to the fortunate few.

This is not just an ethical imperative, but also a matter of ensuring the well-being and dignity of all members of society. In conclusion, judging individuals stealing medicine for survival within a system that prioritises profit over basic needs is ethically simplistic. Let us instead focus on building a healthcare system that upholds the ethical principles of universality, human dignity, and access to life-saving treatments for all. And maybe, if we lead with compassion, ethics can trump profit in a market.