此外，他们亦有责任履行自己的责任，保障公司所有股东、业主、雇员、投资者、政府、承办商、雇员等的利益和期望。该公司致力于通过突破道路的研究和开发药物，可以拯救生命从威胁生命的疾病等人(Santoro & Gorrie, 2005)。因此，他们存在的目的就是通过有效的药物和治疗，为人们服务，使他们免于死亡和恶化(Veatch, Haddad & Veatch, 2008)。这是所有制药公司成立和发展的主要原因，并把它作为他们的使命和愿景之一，服务人民的道德。
考虑到密歇根州的情况，如果Gilead Sciences降低了药物价格，使患者能够负担得起药物，那么它可能会损失利润，也可能会增加成本。这可能使公司注册亏损，并可能对进一步投资没有吸引力。本案的决策者是吉利德科学公司和该公司的代理董事会，他们负责调查密歇根州的药品价格。因此陷入亏损的公司可能不适合生存，也可能在某一天停止生存，销售的药物低于其成本或相当于产生的成本(Lysaught, 2012)。相反，如果公司把股东的期望作为首要目标，他们就不会降低药品价格，这将继续导致200人死于肝病，并导致其他相关疾病。该公司可以做到这一点，因为通过有效的药物拯救各种疾病患者的生命是他们的使命之一。因此，Gilead Sciences在降低药品价格和避免股东期望之间做出选择，在满足股东期望和避免患者期望负担得起的药品和降价之间做出选择，这是一个伦理困境。这种两难困境的道德强度是极端的，因为它与大约200人死于这种疾病有关，而且与这种疾病有关的死亡人数还会进一步上升。这使得吉利德科学及其团队优先考虑该案例并做出适当的决定。
Justification for the above case as an ethical dilemma in a business context
In addition, they are also responsible for fulfilling their own responsibilities of safeguarding the interest and expectations of all shareholders of the company, the owners, the employees, investors, government, contractors, employees, etc. The company works to serve the people through path breaking research and development of the drugs that can save lives from life threatening diseases among others (Santoro & Gorrie, 2005). Thus, the very purpose of their existence is to serve people and save them from dying and from deteriorating through effective medication and treatment (Veatch, Haddad & Veatch, 2008). This is the primary reason on which all pharma companies are formed and thrive on and make it as one of their mission and vision statements of serving people ethically.
The existence of the company is also due to several contributing factors such as investors, shareholders, capitalists, owners’ capital, government subsidies, venture capitalists and private equity investors, etc. (Brody, 2007). The company can simply not let go the contributors and not serve them by producing profits and handing over the fair share to each one of them. Had these contributors not supporting, the company probably would not have been in existence. In contrast, the company is a drug manufacturing company and its primary purpose is to serve the lives of sick people suffering from various diseases through cost effective and affordable medicines. The term affordable is apparent in medicines, because it is an industry which probably must have the least discrimination about who to sell and who not to sell, since it is question of saving lives irrespective of the socio-economic status and condition of the patient (Armour & Cairns, 2002). Thus, the company is tasked with the dual responsibility of serving their shareholders who reinforce their investment in the company due to their belief that the company will fulfil their expectations with substantial profits and ethical conduct, and of serving the people who are patients and requiring immediate, affordable, and effective medication (Britain, 2012).
Considering the case of Michigan, if Gilead Sciences reduces the drug prices and makes them affordable to an extent that it is possible for patients to take the medication, it may lose on its profits and may also enhance its cost. This can make the company register loses and may not be attractive for further investments. The decision maker in this case is Gilead Sciences and the acting board of the company who is responsible for taking a call on the drug prices in Michigan. The company thus getting into loses may be not fit to exist and also cease to exist one day by selling drugs below their cost or equivalent to the cost incurred (Lysaught, 2012). In contrast, if the company prioritises the shareholder expectations as the primary goal, they will not reduce the drug prices and this will continue to register 200 deaths due to liver ailments and also contribute to other relative ailments. The company can do this as it is one of their mission to save the lives of people suffering from various diseases through effective drugs. Thus, Gilead Sciences is in an ethical dilemma of choosing between the reductions of drug prices and avoiding the expectations of the shareholder, and meeting the expectations of shareholders and avoid the expectations of the patients for expecting affordable medicine and price reduction. The moral intensity of the dilemma is extreme as it is related to about 200 deaths due to the disease and further elevation of more deaths related to the disease. This makes it a priority task for Gilead Sciences and its team to consider the case and take an appropriate decision.