Philosophy Keynote Journal, Essay Example

The speaker discusses the obligations that more developed countries have towards the poor around the world.  The issue is fair trade and global health in relation to access to medication. Medicines for these diseases are costly and those afflicted in poorer areas cannot afford treatment. The speaker uses logical analysis in order to support their arguments, establishing the importance of validity early on in the speech.  The argument iscentered on the implementation of a rating system to extend access to people for ratings of pharmaceutical companies.  In this way, the companies will have incentive to extend their access to more people. They use methods to calculate scores based on ratings of factors including access, effectiveness, and cost. These scores are then aggregated and the ratings are determined.

The first part of the argument discusses how companies are violating “Intellectual property rights on essential medicines.” The World Trade Organization made an agreement about intellectual property rights, such as patents, saying that countries should recognize one another’s laws. The one exclusion is for patents on health care. The problem is that these companies are lobbying against this idea, which is immoral.  What is called the Trips agreement has made it harder for poorer countries to keep up with healthcare in order to increase their prices.

The speaker argues next that the companies are failing to live up to their obligations.People have essential rights to medicine, or more accurately, life, which is protected by the essential medicines that the companies are making harder to access. By doing this, the speaker argues, the companies are not succeeding in making people better off than they would otherwise be.  Because companies have access to the ability to help people, according to the author’s theory of responsibility, they are obligated to help, since they have the ability to address problems and issues that those in other sectors don’t.  It isn’t simply because they have the money, but because they are in a better position to help, with the knowledge and technology to do more than state based agencies.

Company’s actions violate rights because they make it foreseeably difficult for poorer countries to access “essential medicines.”  The issue concerns what the rights of people to health and the obligations of people with more to help those with less.Although a company might argue that making more money allows them the ability to help more people, the case is made that if there is someone in front of you who needs help it is good to help them.The given is that people have the right to essential medicines.  Despite this, the speaker argues that the companies are still violating rights.  Enforcing patents can go against the right to reinvent and use products.  People should purchase these goods if it encourages these companies to change this behavior.  By making it harder for companies to make patents on essential medicines, it will spur more innovative production of medicine.

The speaker relies heavily upon the assumption of responsibility.  Although this is something that seems to weaken the argument, they do well in showing wear these weaknesses are throughout the speech for posterity.  The basis of the argument is centered on civic duty and moral decisions.  If the labels that the speaker discussed make these companies stop violating rights and live up to their obligations, than it is something that we should be obligated to support as well.  If people aren’t sacrificing something morally significant by buying these products, then we are obligated to do it as well.  People have an impact on developing countries through the medicines they buy and so they have the responsibility to do this.

Works Cited

Hessuen, Nicole.Global Health Impacts: Extending Access On Essential Medicines. Carnegie Melon.Phil-Keynote.Mpeg-Audio. 2014. April 2014.