Imagine you are the head of research at Merck. Your most successful researcher has come to you with a proposal to develop a new drug for River blindness, a worm-infected disease that strikes 30 to 100 million people, and in every case causes blindness. Merck had just developed a very successful drug for deworming large and small animals, and the researcher thought that another version of that drug would be successful to combat river blindness.

However, there are challenges:

• First, to develop a drug costs around 100 million dollars and takes up to 10 years. Yet everyone who is in danger of infection with river blindness lives in very remote poor regions of the globe and their governments have no money to purchase such a drug.
• Secondly, this drug would have to be tested on human beings; but would that be possible in these remote areas?
• Third, Merck could spend $100 million on developing another important drug for which there was a profitable market.

i need help to outline my position and develop strong arguments to defend that position using the Ethical Decision-Making framework.