Comparative Reasoning Resources Read Review

Comparative Reasoning required Resources read review The Following Resou

Comparative Reasoning required Resources read review The Following Resou

The assignment involves exploring the historical relationship of physicians with tobacco companies and the subsequent advertising of cigarettes, alongside examining the current involvement of doctors in the opioid epidemic. Students are asked to analyze and compare these two situations using the concept of moral equivalence, determining whether the conduct of doctors in relation to tobacco and opioids can be seen as morally comparable, and to provide a detailed supporting argument.

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between the medical profession and industries that promote harmful substances provides a profound illustration of ethical lapses and societal consequences. Historically, physicians in the United States once had a complex relationship with the tobacco industry, which is now viewed critically in hindsight. Simultaneously, the evolving role of physicians in the ongoing opioid epidemic presents contemporary ethical challenges. Examining these two contexts reveals crucial insights into the concepts of moral responsibility and professional integrity within medicine.

Historically, societal norms and commercial interests led many physicians to participate unknowingly or even actively in promoting tobacco products. As documented in Gardner and Brandt’s (2006) analysis, advertisement campaigns in the mid-20th century often featured doctors endorsing cigarettes, thereby lending medical credibility to tobacco consumption. Medical journals and associations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), received funding and support from tobacco companies, blurring the lines between medical advocacy and commercial interests. These relationships persisted for decades, underpinning a cultural acceptance of smoking that contributed to widespread health issues. Physicians' participation in tobacco promotion was driven by economic incentives and a misunderstanding of the health risks, which contributed to a moral lapse—possibly a form of moral compromise or conflict of interest that undermined public health commitments.

In contrast, the current opioid crisis presents a different but related problem involving medical ethics, pharmaceutical industry influence, and societal harm. The opioid epidemic originated from a combination of pharmaceutical marketing strategies, regulatory failures, and prescribing practices. As deShazo et al. (2018) illustrate, the opioid industry engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns, minimizing addiction risks and promoting opioids as safe for pain management. Physicians, influenced by these campaigns, often overprescribed opioids, contributing to widespread addiction and overdose deaths. The ethical breach here involves physicians who either acted negligently or colluded, knowingly or unknowingly, in practices that led to enormous social harm—a situation reminiscent, in some ways, of past misconduct related to tobacco.

Applying the concept of moral equivalence involves assessing whether these two episodes reflect comparable lapses in moral judgment and professional ethics. Both cases involve doctors being enticed or complicit in promoting harmful substances, leading to significant public health consequences. In the tobacco case, physicians’ endorsement of cigarettes was often motivated by financial incentives or social pressures, at a time when the health risks were not fully understood or acknowledged. Their conduct facilitated smoking campaigns that caused millions of deaths, raising questions about their moral responsibility.

Similarly, in the opioid epidemic, some physicians were influenced by pharmaceutical marketing, patient demand, or misguided perceptions of pain management, contributing to overprescription and addiction. While contemporary physicians generally have a better understanding of the addictive potential of opioids, lapses in judgment and failure to adequately consider long-term harm still reflect moral shortcomings. Their conduct can be viewed as morally equivalent to the tobacco-era physicians in terms of failing to prioritize patient and public health, driven by external influences or insufficient ethical scrutiny.

Nevertheless, there are differences that complicate direct moral equivalence. During the tobacco era, physicians often acted with less knowledge of health risks and sometimes actively endorsed smoking, a fundamental moral failure. In contrast, today’s physicians operate in an environment with more awareness of the addictive dangers of opioids and under increased regulatory and ethical scrutiny. The moral gravity may differ because the context involves evolving knowledge, changes in standards of medical ethics, and lessons learned from past transgressions.

Furthermore, the systemic nature of the opioid epidemic — involving multiple stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, regulatory bodies, and healthcare systems — complicates assigning moral blame solely to individual doctors. In many cases, physicians were also victims of industry deception or systemic issues within healthcare practice. Conversely, earlier tobacco-related misconduct was often directly linked to physicians’ endorsements and advertisements, arguably a more direct moral breach.

In conclusion, the conduct of doctors in relation to the tobacco industry and the opioid crisis exhibits significant ethical parallels that justify a degree of moral equivalence. Both situations reveal instances where physicians prioritized economic or social pressures over public health and patient safety, with harmful consequences. However, differences in context, knowledge, and systemic factors nuance this comparison. Statistically and ethically, these episodes underscore the ongoing importance of ethical vigilance, transparent practice, and the continuous reevaluation of professional obligations in medicine to prevent future harms.

References

  • DeShazo, R. D., Johnson, M., Eriator, I., & Rodenmeyer, K. (2018). Backstories on the U.S. opioid epidemic: Good intentions gone bad, an industry gone rogue, and watch dogs gone to sleep. The American Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.02.022
  • Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/opioid-epidemic-who-is-to-blame/
  • Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors' choice is America’s choice: The physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
  • Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.missourimedical.org
  • Wolinsky, H., & Brune, T. (1994). The serpent on the staff: The unhealthy politics of the American Medical Association. Tarcher/Putnam.

Related Assignments