Another One

[DPCondit]

One can look at it in a vacuum and come up with one reasonable answer, but these things don't exist in a vacuum. Once you cover up this, what happens when you discover another of your company's drugs is killing 500 people a year? Keeping this afloat may keep a competitor from going after another drug that is even more effective, and can't you sell the patent to another company?

I know this sounds like a lot of wiggling, and it is, but few things exist in a vacuum in the real world.

[mmcd]

Simple:
Supress the evidence to save the 950 lives, and keep and the company from going under, but make sure to charge the person/people that would be hurt most if the company goes under a healthy fee for your services.

[DPCondit]

This is a different question. When it comes to drugs, another company could be also working on the same cure, and that would also have to be factored in. Also, generally most research centers around how many people are cured from that specific disease or condition, and doesn't fully take into account how many side effects may develop that cause equal or greater amounts of people to die earlier than they would have from other causes, so these numbers would be fuzzy indeed.

What if 1000 people were saved from dying, but another 3000 end up dying 10 or 15 years earlier than they would have from other complications related to the drug? Until this drug has been around for several decades it may not even be possible to get a realistic overall estimate in the total reduction (or increase) in long term morbidity related to this treatment, although it may be very specifically effective against this one thing. Even if the increase in morbidity from other causes was factored in and found to be negligible, there still could be other side effects which drastically reduce the overall quality of life for many of the recipients, and that would also have to be factored in.

Looking at your new question, if you are to save these people from dying tomorrow, are we to assume that they are not going to suffer other adverse side effects, and that they are expected to live a normal lifespan? I cannot imagine many things so clear cut in the real world, but if this is the question and these are the assumptions, then I would have to opt for a 90% chance of saving the 1000 people and sacrifice the 50.

Don

[goofball]

it's very tempting to resort to mathematics to solve this, but this forces you in to many uncomfortable situations.

so if you say you save teh 1000 people because 90% of 1000 people dying is in effect 900 people dying and that is more then 50 people.
However, if we extend this principle

you have the following choices: kill 1 person or let 1000 people face a .2% chance of dying. Mathematically the first option is the death of one person but the second is the death of two.

or another example, kill 1000 people to save the world (estimated at 5e9 people) from a 1e-4% chance of dying. unless i've screwed up an order of magnitude somewhere, the first situaiton means 1000 people dying and the second means 5000.

[Loci]

Under the circumstances that these people are dying in a very short period of time, (lets say an average of three months) and assuming that the quality of that life would be painful, it is more humane to let them all take the risk. Obviously it is far better to save 900 then none.

If all cases are terminal and all patients are suffering, it is more ethical to give them all a shot at a life than no chance at all. If the drug worked on one in a hundred, I feel most of the patients would still like the chance to be that one percent.

On a side note, my cousin works for the FDA, and I once heard him say that they were so desperate to find a cure for AIDS that they would approve most any drug "so long as it doesn't make your head turn blue and fall off." Just thought that was funny.

For some reason, I'm under the impression that this is alegorical for your expected values equations.

[felson]

Choices of this nature are made all the time. The introduction of the automobile has saved many lives, and has also led to many accidental deaths. But I don't think many people would argue that the automobile should have never been invented.

So I would opt to save the 1,000 lives. Although I wouldn't enjoy it (especially if I had to select the 50 who were to die).

[felson]

I suppose the difference between the question and the automobile example is that the automobile had > 90% chance of being beneficial. Still, I think that the answer is the same.

[cfpesq]

Using John Rawls veil of ignorance would be appropriate in this situation. It requires decisions be made in the dark -meaning that you do not know whether you, your family, or friends would be a member of the 50 doomed to die. With this in mine, the decision to expose new evidence is required.

A society that attempts to serve the greatest good for the greatest many will eventually end up with a communist/socialist goverment where those in charge live well, while all others serve those who rule.

Withholding evidence of harm cannot be justified in any situation- just look to those African Americans left untreated with syphilis by the government in an effort to learn about how the disease progresses.

Lives are not of equal value, yet no one has the right to decide who is more important. Anyone claiming such divine knowledge should get their head examined. Eventually, another situation will arise maybe 250 lives lost to save 1000 - is that ok as well. How about 975 lives lost to save 1000. This is not a math problem, but a philosophical one.

[DiceyPlay]

How many people/year does the new drug kill? Why will it be delayed for many many years if your company goes bankrupt? Won't another large pharmaceutical pick it up (buy rights to it)? Do 1000 people die each year without the new blockbuster drug? Does the new blockbuster drug kill people who would have lived had they not taken the drug? How many lives is the most recent drug saving as well as killing 50? Very thought provoking but it leads to many more questions as it's not realistic.

[SenecaJim]

Yes, David, all the time. I think Harry Truman even made a call like this one.