Today, we often hear of new studies that have found something from our everyday lives extremely toxic or a new drug that is all healing, and a week later a new study is released saying the opposite of the previous two. This article by the New York Times is not an anomaly. This specific study found a new cholesterol-cutting drug that can protect patients against heart risk. The study costs a total of 1 billion dollars and was paid for by the maker of the drug.
The drug can make cholesterol level drop to unprecedented levels naturally seen in adults. This drug has become the realization of a vision hoped for by many investors into the study that they will be able to lower risks of heart attacks and strokes.
Unfortunately, costs will be an issue. The new drug currently has a list price of $14,523 per year. In addition, insurance companies have been reluctant to pay for it. Therefore, the next big issue to handle will be financial affordability.
When speaking on the Duty of Veracity, the text frequently addresses deceit as the framing of information to portray something that may not actually be so. Or, necessary information not being shared in order to deceive readers or clients. According to the text, this is seen as the withholding of information and deceitful.
Paradoxically, in this case, information was not withheld but shared by a study that believed they had found a new drug that would help save many lives. While this may be true, there are other ways to decrease heart risks without taking this drug. Therefore, is it considered deceit when information is disclosed in this context with a positive impact in mind, but side effects of this may be more damaging than a more traditional way of decreasing heart disease chances?
I believe this is still deceitful because the company that is supporting such research is the same company that will be selling the drug. Therefore, they may not be sharing the information that with the best intentions for the consumer in mind.