Merck : A Product Recall

“So, you’d need more sick people. Or else– and it might be the same thing– more diseases. New and different ones. Right?”

My experience at CVS/Pharmacy is a thorough illustration of the integration of ethics, technology and management. Since the time of Hippocrates, ethics have been at the forefront of importance in the healthcare field with pharmaceuticals bearing no exception. As members of the healthcare team, pharmacy staff have an ethical responsibility to ensure the safety of their patients; thus there is a need to make sure drug and other health information regarding the patient is accurate. Providing the wrong drug or drug dosage and issues of drug-drug interactions are just some of the very serious concerns associated with pharmaceuticals. Another ethical issue that is often related to the healthcare industry is privacy.

The Pharmaceutical industry has been in the spotlight for decades due to the fact that they have a reputation for being unethical in its marketing strategies. In The Washington Post Shannon Brownlee (2008) states, “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow.” This honorable statement is completely lost in today’s world of pharmaceutical marketing tactics. These tactics are often deceptive and biased. Big Pharma consistently forgets their moral purpose and focuses primarily on the almighty dollar. Big Pharma is working on restoring their reputation by reforming their ethical code of conduct.

If a company is found to be non-guilty in a court of law, does it mean that the company made sound business decisions, or simply that they didn’t break any laws that are written in black and white? Merck, the producer of an anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, knowingly sold and continued to market the drug on a large scale even though it was found to carry substantial risks to cardiovascular health. Additionally, even after external research, product labels failed to effectively communicate the increased risk of heart attacks or cardiac death. Although Merck was not proven, in the eyes of the law, to have known the extent of harmful side effects before they pulled the drug, there are several indications that they did have enough information to discontinue the drug pending further research. The questionable decisions made by the company caused thousands of patients who were prescribed the medication to suffer heart attacks, or even die.

While some have identified Merck as a visionary company dedicated to a "core values and a sense of purpose beyond just making money" (Collins & Porras, 2002, p. 48), others point out corporate misdeeds perpetrated by Merck (e.g., its role in establishing a dubious medical journal that republished articles favorable to Merck products) as contradictory

he Tylenol crisis is far away from comparing with the Vioxx. In the case of Tylenol, the Johnson & Johnson Company was the victim of an unfair attack that targets its consumers in order to sabotage the company reputation. That is why the organization undertook many approaches to handle the situation in an open communication in effort to explain to the public what happened and regain the consumer’s trust. By contrast, in the Vioxx scenario, the company was the instigator of the fraud. They use manipulation and lies in order to make money regardless of people’s lives. Unlike the Johnson & Johnson Company, the Vioxx tried to hide information and force pharmacies and physicians to prescribe and sell the dangerous product. After I read the article,

Even though the pharmaceutical industry has made great improvements to human health and quality of life, like creating drugs for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, and other diseases, an increasing tension is growing between the public and the industry. These thoughts are fueled by issues such as drug pricing, affordable health care, and the battle against epidemic diseases in third world countries; social critics wonder whether this multi-billion dollar industry is giving enough back to the community and fulfilling its social responsibility.

Turner Pharmaceuticals is dedicated to helping those patients who has serious diseased without a wide range of treatment options. This was a good ethics is only the company followed. Investor replace Shkreli with Tilles.

Chapter 2 article 2: Merck Manuals Provides Tips for Identifying and Treating Poisoning: Toxicology Specialist Debunks Poison Myths and Misconceptions

Turnaround Strategy : Merck’s research and development has not always resulted in products that provide value to consumers. Vioxx was taken off the market in 2004 when people became sick and died after taking the drug. The company’s reputation suffered after allegations that Merck asked doctors to sign Merck-written research studies for Vioxx. Merck disputes the allegation, but more than 9,200 lawsuits were filed against the company. Vioxx had generated $2.5 billion in annual sales.

In application, people might view Merck’s duties in different ways. For example, one might argue that as a company Merck only has responsibilities to release effective and safe medications and to make a profit to stay in business. On the other hand, it could be argued that as a pharmaceutical company Merck has special obligations to follow leads (like ivermectin) because they may greatly benefit human beings or save lives despite being unprofitable.

In 2000, Merck began to cooperate with Schering-Plough on several research products and in 2009 acquired their longtime partner in an effort to diversify its products and reach a broader consumer base. With challenges that include rising prices of research and prescription drugs, Merck has managed to forge forward and overcome obstacles. Merck’s survival has been a subject of speculation many times throughout the years; from the 2004 recall of their top selling drug (Vioxx) due to undesirable side effects to the recently curtailed trials of their very promising new anti-clotting drug (Vorapaxar) due to negative trial results. Kenneth Frazier, Merck’ CEO, has also come under heavy criticism due to his unconventional decision not to cut research budgets in order to increase profits. This strategy differs greatly from the usual path and it has cost Merck investor confidence which resulted in lowered stock prices . Although Merck has been subjected to challenges throughout their history they have always managed to stay afloat and maintain their reputation as a leader in healthcare.

Costs of the decision included negative public perceptions of the firm and denial of treatment to economically disadvantaged and uninsured consumers. the decision was ethical because the benefits of new life saving drugs outweighed the costs of denial of treatment to the few. So GSK regarding to its primary stakeholders was social responsible.

Merck was established in 1891 to improve human and animal health through the development of innovative products. Merck currently has two reportable segments, the Pharmaceutical Segment and the Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Segment. Merck sells products through several channels including wholesalers, retailers, hospitals, clinics, government and managed health services providers. In the 1980’s the Merck was very successful in producing 10 major new drugs and had a very healthy pipeline. In later years, Merck has entered into joint ventures with many other pharmaceutical companies in order to expand its pipeline. In the last several years Merck has

In the late 1970s, Merck was falling off a 10-year dry season as far as new items. For about 10 years, the organization had depended on two physician endorsed drugs for a critical rate of its around $2 billion in yearly deals: Indocin, a treatment for rheumatoid joint inflammation, and Aldomet, a treatment for hypertension. Henry W. Gadsden, Merck's CEO from 1965 to 1976, alongside his successor, John J. Horan, were worried that the 17-year patent security on Merck's two major moneymakers would soon terminate, and started putting a tremendous sum in research.