&gt; What if a pharma company came and said, &quot;you know, this medicine causes birth defects, but it&#x27;s OK to push it on Indians because 80% lack decent medication&quot;... would you be for it?<p>If you replace &quot;birth defects&quot; (which imply a complicated moral issue of mother vs baby) with &quot;nasty side effects&quot;, and assume that without this medication 80% of population would suffer a fate objectively worse than these side-effects (like loss of hearing vs death) — why the hell not?