Technology and medicine are evolving beyond their present limitations as time passes. The evolution of medicine and technology has given individuals access to drugs and treatments that can save their lives for disorders they previously had no treatment. The cost of treatment is a barrier for certain disorders. One of those cases is spinal muscle atrophy. Spinal muscular atrophy, which is a genetic disorder characterized by weakness and wasting (atrophy) in muscles used for movement, is an example of one of these cases. Researchers have made a breakthrough with Spinraza, a drug. Spinraza was developed to treat spinal muscular atrophies (SMAs) in adults and children (Spinraza). This scientific breakthrough could have a profound impact on the lives of millions. It is not sufficient to find a remedy. Spinraza is an example of a drug that has been found to be effective, but at astronomical costs. Spinraza may cost families 700k in the first treatment year and 300k annually after that. Spinraza can cost a family up to 700k in their first year of treatment and 300k each subsequent year. The Province of British Columbia, in response, has decided to cover these costs with public funds. In this article, we will discuss why public financing for life-saving drugs is acceptable and should be mandatory from both an utilitarian as well as deontological standpoint. Higher powers should consider the ethical and moral implications of spending large sums of money to treat minorities when making important decisions.
Higher powers have shown that they value ethics and helping people in need by allowing them to use public funds for treatment of spinal muscle atrophy. It is because of this that utilitarianism supports the use of public funds for spinal muscular atrophy patients and others. Utilitarianism aims to value “the greatest good of the greatest number”. (Holland, 2015). Thus, a utilityist would argue the government should place a high value on the general utility (“Regarding Happiness, Pleasure, and Freedom from Pain” (Holland, 2015). Its citizens. British Columbia’s Provincial government shows its commitment to ethical behavior by allocating resources. Consider that there are drugs in circulation that could save lives if the needy receive financial assistance. It’s clear from this that utilitarianism favors the use of public funding in order to meet the needs of drug distribution. It is utilitarian to provide aid to people who can benefit, as this will increase their overall satisfaction. It is clear that, if funding for others is available from public sources, rule utilitarianism will be used to make a decision. This is because the rules of the act are followed in a way that is most useful (Holland, 2015). If the public money is available to help save lives, or if it is left to those who are suffering and could face death, the ethical choice is clear. Jeremy Bentham was a philosopher (Holland) and the founder utilitarianism. Bentham said that “pain and pleasure alone” can determine our actions and what we should be doing (Snyder). Bentham, a philosopher and founder of utilitarianism (Holland, 2015), said it is the job of pain and pleasure “to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do” (Snyder 2018). Act utilitarianism would go beyond rule utilitarianism to support public funding for life-saving drugs. Act utilitarianism aims to maximize utility by ensuring that all consequences are considered (Holland 2015). Statistics Canada (2018) states that in 2014, the median income for a family of four was $76,770. Spinraza’s 700k commitment to the drug shows how a typical family is unable financially to support its use. Act utilitarianism will support the idea that public funds should be allocated to assist families who are financially constrained to access life-saving medications. It would be a way to ensure that those without other access to life-saving medications could still benefit from them. To truly be able to satisfy the needs of all patients, it is necessary that high-cost drugs are distributed. This high priority is the best way to ensure that everyone has access to life-saving medications. Comment by Harneet Sandhu: This sounds strange.
How the public money will be used is a key question when deciding whether to use it to fund access to specific treatments for disorders. When it comes to drugs that can save lives, such as Spinraza or other life-saving medications, funding public access becomes a matter of duty rather than choice. Immanuel’s Deontology theory supports this idea. Deontology, the ethical theory, is based more on “the rightness and wrongness of an action than its consequences” (Holland, 2015). Deontology values morality above all else and encourages only morally good actions. According to the theory, refusing to let public funds be allocated to high-cost medications would be a morally bad action. Deontology’s respect for public funding is based on this central concept. Deontology would argue that not using public funding is morally wrong because it causes harm to an individual due to other people’s decisions. Deontology supports this idea because it is morally incorrect to make decisions that cause others pain. The universality theory, which advocates only following a rule that is universal law with no consequences (Holland) supports this. The concept of refusing help to someone when the means are available to do so is a good example. The morally right action is to use public funds to buy life-saving drugs. This will save lives and help others. Both utilitarianism and deontology support the use of public funds to purchase life-saving medications. They both provide the greatest utility while also being the morally correct choice. Comment by Harneet Sandhu: Is it necessary to get rid of the is? Comment by Harneet Sandhu: That should be the means
Both deontology as well as utilitarianism can be seen to support the use of public funds in order to provide life-saving treatments and drugs. However, it is still possible to question whether the decision based on morality is the best option. Utilitarianism, and deontology in this case, focus on the idea that helping people by doing the morally right thing is the best way to help them. Others may still argue that despite the ethical aspect, the recipients of public funds are too small to be fully justified. Spinraza is a good example. Allocating millions of dollars per year to a few select individuals could be detrimental over time. The United Kingdom is home to between 500 and 2,000 people who suffer from spinal atrophy (TreatSMA). Worldometers (2018) estimates that the United Kingdom’s population is approximately 66,000,000 (Worldometers), which is approximately 1.8x more than Canada (Worldometers 2018). If Canada’s spinal muscular dystrophy ratio is equal to the United Kingdom’s, then it could be estimated that Canada has as few as 277 spinal muscular dystrophy cases. Assuming that the cases are distributed equally across all provinces, British Columbia may have 23 hypothetical patients. Spinraza can cost up to 16,000,000 dollars for the first year alone if 23 patients use public funds. The high cost of Spinraza may lead some to argue that it’s not feasible for the government to pay for the treatment. They may instead advocate that the public funds are used to help a greater percentage of people.
To answer this critic, it would be best to educate the opponent on the true value of human life. Immanuel Kann, a German deontologist and philosopher, is credited with the formulation of humanity. It helps explain the ethical reasoning behind why money, as a simple concept, is not valuable. The formula says that people should be treated as ends rather than means. Kant believed that money is not comparable to the value a human life. The value of the money used to cover life-saving treatment pales in comparison with the lives that could be saved. Acknowledging this shows that it is an ethical and proper use of funds for the government to pay for the drugs. The increase in life expectancy is worth more than any other benefit or cost.
In the future, there will be more debates over whether the public should fund life-saving medicines. There are many reasons to provide financial assistance for those in need of life-saving treatment. Utilitarians, as well Deontologists, both list the reasons why it is ethical to use public funds. This includes the universality of the principle, the utility of the decision, and its moral correctness. The counter argument that these life-saving treatments and drugs are too expensive to use in terms of optimal public funds can be countered by comparing the real value of human lives to dollars. As technology and medicine progress, so should public funding for those who require life-saving medicines and treatments. It is inherently ethical and valuable to save and help human lives.
