THE ETHICAL PROBLEM: Allowing someone to die, mercy death, and mercy killing, Euthanasia: A 24-year-old man named Robert who has a wife and child is paralyzed from the neck down in a motorcycle accident. He has always been very active and hates the idea of being paralyzed. He also is in a great deal of pain, an he has asked his doctors and other members of his family to "put him out of his misery." After several days of such pleading, his brother comes into Robert's hospital ward and asks him if he is sure he still wants to be put out of his misery. Robert says yes and pleads with his brother to kill him. The brother kisses and blesses Robert, then takes out a gun and shoots him, killing him instantly. The brother later is tried for murder and acquitted by reason of temporary insanity. Was what Robert's brother did moral? Do you think he should have been brought to trial at all? Do you think he should have been acquitted? Would you do the same for a loved one if you were asked? THE DISCUSSION: In my opinion, the most dubious part about the case would be the part on Robert pleading with his brother, asking his brother to kill him. This could be his brother's own account of the incident and could/could not have been a plea by Robert. 1) With assumption that Robert indeed pleaded with his brother to kill him, an ethical analysis as such could be derived: That Robert's brother was only respecting Robert's choice and killed him because he wanted to relieve him from his misery. This could be argued to be ethical using a teleoloigical framework where the focus is on the end-result and the consequences that entails the action. Here, although the act of killing per se may be wrong and illegal, Robert was able to relieved of his pain and suffering. 2) With an assumption that Robert did not plea with his brother to kill him and that it was his brother's own decision to relieve Robert of all-suffering: In this case, the b

Summary of the Unethical Marketing of Zyprexa by Eli Lilly: \n\nEli Lilly is a global pharmaceutical company. In the year 2006, it was charged with unethical marketing of Zyprexa, the top-selling drug. It is approved only for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. \nFirstly, Eli Lilly in a report downplayed the risks of obesity and increased blood sugar associated with Zyprexa. Although Eli Lilly was aware of these risks for at least a decade, they went ahead without emphasizing the significance of these risks, in fear of jeopardizing their sales. \nSecondly, Eli Lilly held a promotional campaign called Viva Zyprexa, encouraging off-label usage of this drug in patients who had neither schizophrenia nor bipolar disorder. This campaign was targeted at the elderly who had dementia. However, this drug was not approved to treat dementia. In fact, it could increase the risk of death in older patients who had dementia-related psychosis. \nAll these were done to boost the sale of Zyprexa and to bring in more revenue for Eli Lilly. Zyprexa could alone bring in $4billion worth of sales annually. \n\nEthical Question:\nTo what extent should pharmaceutical companies go to inform potential consumers on the side-effects of their drugs? \n\nEthical Problem: \nThe information that is disseminated through marketing campaigns have to be true and transparent. There should not be any hidden agenda behind the amount of information being released. In this case, to prevent sales from plummeting, Eli Lilly downplayed the side-effects of Zyprexa. It also encouraged off-label usage. \nIt is very important that pharmaceutical companies practice good ethics as this concerns the health of its consumers. While one drug may act as a remedy for a health-problem, it could possibly lead to other health problems due to the side-effects. All these have to be conveyed to the consumer who exchanges his money for the product. \nNot being transparent and honest with the information of the pr