Background on the Case Study
For years, Merck had been a successful and reputable pharmaceutical company that was known for its high-quality products and world-class research centres, and was often regarded in a good light compared to its less favourable competitors. However, all this fell apart in the early 2000s with the recall of the company’s “blockbuster” drug “Viroxx.” It was meant to act similar to ibuprofen in ways that it cured osteoarthritis and acute pain, but was withdrawn in 2004 after numerous studies showed that it caused an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. However, by that time over 80 million patients worldwide had used it and it was directly related to the death of over 27,000 people.
Ethical Issues and Questions
1. How honest are the claims that Merck has made (past or present) regarding their actions?
Merck claimed that they couldn’t tell if it was Vioxx that was causing the heart problems or was it Naproxen that was preventing it. However, these claims were not honest, as studies state that Merck was seeing the events unfold before them and saw that the people who took the drug Vioxx were experiencing heart problems and difficulties. Therefore, the claims that Merck made were not ethical because, prior to FDA approval and study submission to NEJM, the corporation knew that the drug was not safe.
2. How reliable are the claims made by those who criticize Merck’s activities in the pharmaceutical industry?
The claims made by the ones who
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful and greedy industries in our country, with a goal to make as large a profit as possible, at the expense of the sick.
Dr. David Graham is the senior scientist within the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety. Graham became concerned when he started to see an increased number of patients having heart attacks and strokes after taking a large does of the drug Vioxx, back in 2002. He raised his concern to the FDA saying that the warning label needs to be changed due to his new findings. He had trouble getting this any attention from the FDA’s administration and decided it was time to ‘blow the whistle’ and go to the media.
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
Pfizer is the largest American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It competes with Merck and Glaxo, and markets such well-known medications as Celebrex and Viagra. However, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole has undergone changes in recent years with significant consolidation taking place and with increased scrutiny regarding the ways in which drugs are developed, tested and marketed. In addition, recent controversies have erupted regarding Merck's drug Vioxx, and Pfizer has been the target of unwanted publicity regarding its painkiller Celebrex. This research considers the strategic position of Pfizer, including its strengths and weaknesses as well
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.
Last year, in September 2004, Merck withdrawed Vioxx, off the market. Studies of Vioxx showed that it doubled the risk of a heart attack or stroke for patients who have used it more than 18 months. After Merck, withdrawed Vioxx from the market, the FDA, issued a public health advisory for the users of Vioxx. Therefore, Vioxx was on the market for five years without
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
Another issue is too much power is given to scientists in decision-making of candidate drugs. Also there were inadequacies and lack of communication between marketing and research. Merck’s marketing and research needed to realize that the making of the drug is not only the most important part in increasing sales, but it also included a strong advertising campaign that will satisfy the needs of the customers.
Merck is a drug manufacture giant who brings an annual revenue of nearly fifty billion. Prior the Vioxx recall Merck was a highly valued company when it came to its ethical standard. It had consistently toped list for companies to work for (Lawrence & Weber, 2014). In addition to this they were well recognized as a socially responsible company who placed an importance on testing to provide the best quality pharmaceuticals. The Vioxx recall caused a huge blow for the company resulting in lawsuits and drop in company value.
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.
“All journals are bought — or at least cleverly used — by the pharmaceutical industry”
The cost of new medical drugs seems to be accepted by many people who use them. These pharmaceutical companies increase their profits more and more each year because many people assume that it does cost a lot of money for research and development. Where in reality, they are only spending about 15% of their profit margins on research and development alone. A huge percentage of these drugs are actually tested in other countries where people are more willing to do trials with these drugs because they cannot afford them. Not only are there more people who are more willing to try them, but also there is less regulation and oversight when it comes to testing. Conducting these clinical trials overseas not only saves
A turnaround strategy needs to address the following: a suffered reputation, lost patent protection on several drugs, a slowing pipeline, and a decreasing stock price. Merck is not shying away from lawsuits and is taking cases to court. Its legal defense budget was increased, but it did not set aside funds for liabilities showing that it confident it will win. The opinions of 200 employees were solicited in deciding the company’s future strategy. Cutting costs
Merck was one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. • Merck was about to lose patent protection of two of its best selling drugs, which had been a significant part of their $2 billion annual sales. • Merck began putting millions of dollars into research (up to $1 billion) and within three years, Merck was able to discover four powerful medications. • Profits weren’t all that Merck cared about; Merck’s founder believed that “medicine is for people. It is not for the profits.” • He also believed that following the “medicine is for people” philosophy would lead to profits and had yet to fail.• River Blindness is caused by parasitic worms, which can be found in
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.