Business Ethics

I think Big Pharma companies skew their data very regularly. Although this is not ethical, it's practiced in this field because there is a certain probability calculated as it relates to side effects and ineffectiveness. For instance when we take Tylenol as a child we eventually become tolerant to the dosage. As we get older we need to increase the dosage even more than is advertised to get relief. The Pharma companies do not advertise that ALL pills have a toxicity level and will affect our organs at some point in time. Each pill is tested for toxicity levels before being released to the public. With that said, these companies take on a certain amount of acceptable risk when producing medication. The public has accepted this risk with

The twenty-first century has seen pharmaceutical companies grow in unprecedented size and strength. Due to the unprecedented growth the larger pharmaceutical companies have gained leverage and power in the prescription drug industry, but they lack innovation to market and they seek ways to help the business continue to increase its profits. The pharmaceutical industry was once ethically sound and was a valuable player in the development of human health. However, overtime with the lack of innovation pharmaceutical companies are becoming an unethical market that exploits patients, doctors and anyone else it can to increase its profitability. With eyes only on profitability this can create a hazard for patients because there

How many times over the past 10 years has a drug or drug regimen been deemed unsafe and extremely dangerous yet the pharmaceutical companies covered it up in order to continue raking in the profits for as long as possible? If you do the research its an unbelievable amount, not a hard thing to find, and thats only going back 10 years. How about hormone replacement therapy for women? The standard care for a menopausal woman for over the past 40 years has been HRT (hormone replacement therapy). Even women with no complaints were advised that this treatment was helpful as it reduced chances for a heart attack and cancer and even helped them feel younger. Were any of these claims true? Not even in the slightest bit. Breast cancer risk has doubled for women on HRT, with a 41% increased risk for stroke, and a 29% increased risk of a heart attack (“Medical News Today”). How about Vioxx? This was a drug that was an alternative to over the counter meds such as

Current FDA regulations my have rendered pharmaceutical companies to be cautious of citing unbranded studies that provide additional information about a particular disease or condition in their marketing materials.

Drug marketing can lead to false diagnosis and the medication has potential to harm to the patient.

In the second scenario it is believed that a college is falsifying data in a research project to hide the true results. A medical journal is going to publish the results of the study. Publishing erroneous results can not only hurt the company’s reputation but can also lead people to use a drug that does not provide the expected results.

I aim to explain the drug development process, to explore the legal and ethical implications associated with wrongful off-label prescribing, and provide my recommendations for reform of the pharmaceutical industry. I will consistently refer to the GlaxoSmithKline case to display the maleficent inner workings of the multinational pharmaceutical company. Glaxo was involved in the biggest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history for introducing and encouraging physicians to off-label prescribe their patients six misbranded drugs, Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal, Avandia and Zofran. Kickbacks were paid to physicians that prescribed those drugs but also for the drugs Imitrex, Flovent, Lotronex, and Valtrex. Glaxo also failed to report safety data to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Avandia, a diabetes drug. I find this issue to be so important because I hope to pursue a career in health law. My health policy major and relevant coursework ignited my interest in the legal issues strewn throughout our health care system.

Pharmaceutical companies are receiving negative allegations due to the “off-label” advertising of drugs. The Federal and Drug Administration require strict regulations for the use of “off-label” drugs in the pharmaceutical industry. “Off-label” practice of drugs are not prohibited, however, promoting the drugs are illegal. The concern of effective treatment is weighing the benefits and risks of “off-label” drugs for the best interest of the patient. In addition, companies who fail to comply with the FDA regulations, face consequences such as costly fines as well as criminal issues. Pharmaceutical companies often settle with the government, due to lack of proper procedures, complying with public health agencies. Modifying the policies of pharmaceutical companies with a different approach will limit the misuse of “off-label” drugs (Ghillyer, 2014).

Another striking example of this regulatory failure and the unethical outcomes of regulatory capture is the use of trade secret laws to benefit drug companies and help them minimize, deny, or hide adverse effects of their products. The lack of transparency in the drug approval process is highlighted by the use of trade secret laws, which are successful at hiding unflattering drug trial data or reports of dangerous side effects even against the Freedom of Information Act by classifying them as “trade secrets” instead of necessary information for consumers. In the private sector, trade secret laws are a fundamental protection to drive investment and economic growth, however, when interpreted generously, this law protects all the data collected during the innovative period of drug manufacturing, including the results of some trials or side effect reporting, from anyone outside the company. Supporters of this interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act claim that failed efforts at drug development need protection to ensure that the developers are not at a “competitive disadvantage.” However, when the same drug can be disapproved for one use but approved for another, this data is still relevant to public health, yet is locked up by the FDA. This was the case for the Eli Lilly drug Yentreve, a drug that was disapproved for treating stress urinary incontinence due to data showing its connection to suicide rate increases, but approved under the name Cymbalta to treat depression. According to the FDA, federal regulation prohibits them from releasing study data for a drug that failed to gain FDA approval, even if the same drug under a different name, is on the market. With so much data off-limits, it is hard to account for other cases such as this but many private researchers point to pain reliever Bextra, manufactured by the

The industry of the pharmaceutical companies has become involved in a heretic and manipulative manner which affects the credibility of the medications. The health care providers (medical practitioners) community are entitled to make an informed judgment when it comes to the plausibility and safety of the drugs.

Unethical business research happens more often than we think. At times the evidence is clearly there or on the fence. Researchers conclude studies for companies, to find results or outcomes, and report the results to management for a sound decision. However, the problem is some studies or researchers may be basis, but mainly ethics is the issue. My paper is about Bayer the maker of Yasmin and Yaz birth control pills. With all pharmaceutical products, there are side effects. Normally when medicine is purchased in the store, side effects are usually printed on the packaging and bottle for consumers to read and make sound decision about taking the medication. What if the manufacture concealed valuable information

The industry is making lower quality material even though they have the money to spend, corruption is somewhat common among the industries. ”We're not adding any patient to the population of those that could benefit from the drug. As far as the patients are concerned, it is a complete waste”(Drugs For Rare Diseases Have Become Uncommonly Rich Monopolies)Drug pricing can be manipulated through law and availability, naturally a drug for a rarer disease will be more expensive, the companies use this to clinch more financing. The general majority is not being taken care of as much as the minority population with rare diseases. Drugs developed for rarer diseases are called “Orphan Drugs”. The research being payed for by taxpayers and the federal government is being used for developing more orphan drugs than drugs for more common diseases. This wastes some time and money, as orphan drugs typically take a lot longer to develop than other drugs. Although orphan drugs

Another question we come across in this case is "Should these pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to make the drugs available to the people who they performed clinical trials on?". Again we clearly should see that the pharmaceutical companies should allow the access of these drugs to the people that are being used to test their products. There is a huge risk for these people who are taking a new drug, not knowing exactly what the outcome can be and are merely treated as guinea pigs for the

The pharmaceutical industry confronts several dilemmas every year. Most of these dilemmas revolve around money or whether or not to sacrifice now for a bigger payoff in the end concerning money and/or lives. Pharmaceutical companies tend to use shortcuts that create ethical problems. Drug companies have spent millions/billions of dollars in research, and they obviously want to see

1. The Sales Rep. A sales representative for a struggling computer supply firm has a chance to close a multimillion-dollar deal for an office system to be installed over a two-year period. The machines for the first delivery are in the company’s warehouse, but the remainder would have to be ordered from the manufacturer. Because the manufacturer is having difficulty meeting the heavy demand for the popular model, the sales representative is not sure that the subsequent deliveries can be made on time. Any delay in converting to the new system would be costly to the customer; however, the blame could be placed on the manufacturer. Should the sales representative close the deal without advising the customer