Was Eli Lilly Acting Morally?

Were Eli Lilly’s Actions Morally Appropriate?

Not Morally Acceptable

The company is not acting morally appropriate because they are not acting in the best interest of the individual. They are acting in the best interest of the society as a whole while neglecting to promote the individuals welfare.

Eli Lilly is compensating their "employees" with $85/day along with room and board, but it can be argued that this is not enough considering the nature of the job. The unknown health risks that could result in disability or death places this job as very high risk and taking that into consideration, the compensation is not fair. The company states that the decision to volunteer is a "truly voluntary and uncoerced decision" but Eli Lilly’s utilization of homeless alcoholics as subjects for drug testing is morally inappropriate due to the predatory nature of their coercion efforts. Coercion is defined as getting a person to perform involuntary actions through various means such as pressure; a coerced person will perform actions that an unaffected person will never perform. This coercion takes place by offering food, shelter, and money to vulnerable homeless alcoholics in exchange for them to become subjects to untested drug research. Libertarian justice, as Robert Nozick theorizes, every individual possesses a negative moral right to be free from coercion from other individuals (83) and that the only form of distribution that is just "results from free individual choices" (95).

The FDA requires participants to give their informed consent, but many of the volunteers have no idea what is being tested on them and its effects on their health. The only reason for signing the consent form is due to their vulnerable circumstances, which is unfair. The volunteers do have a moral right to engage in drug tests in pursuit of their interests, and the FDA also has a right to administer these tests once the consent forms have been signed. Eli Lilly is benefiting...