Patent protection plays, as Harrelson (2001) has pointed out, an important role in economic growth. Along these lines, pharmaceutical companies frequently argue that without the generous profits they derive from selling drugs that are protected under patent laws, they would be unable to invest into new research, which is crucial in finding cures for devastating diseases such as cancer, HIV/Aids, or even various forms of influenza. For years, pharmaceutical companies have used this argument to oppose demands that they should sell their drugs at a reduced price to Third World countries, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV/Aids are rampant. This situation poses an ethical dilemma that is particularly hard to solve, since pharmaceutical companies are legally not required to share their patents or sell their drugs at reduced prices.
In the absence of a legal framework that could force pharmaceutical companies to sell their drugs at reduced prices, this problem can only be solved by appealing to the ethical obligations and corporate responsibilities of these pharmaceutical companies. However, as Nussbaum has pointed out, pharmaceutical companies have only recently taken up the notion of social corporate responsibility, and it is still a long way until they fully adopt its implications into their management and marketing practices. Accordingly, although it is within their power to help, it greatly depends on their goodwill and sense of ethics.
From a moral perspective, they should be obliged to sell drugs at a reduced rate because selling these drugs at regular prices to Third World countries would unduly add to these countries' financial strains. One could even argue that selling drugs at regular prices is a form of colonial exploitation that seeks profits at the expanse of the poor and powerless.
Overall, the question of whether or not to sell drugs at reduced prices in Third World countries
...