Essay on Merck and Co., River Blindness

Drug companies that test experimental drugs in foreign countries are not acting ethically. Testing of experimental drugs should be done in the host country where the drugs are being manufactured. A major ethical dilemma that is

John Moore lost the lawsuit against David Golde, according to the judge he had no right “to ownership interest in the patent - he was not one of the inventors. Nor, it concluded, could a patient exercise property rights over discarded body tissues.” (von der Ropp & Taubman, 2006). The loss of the lawsuit by Moore caused a lot of media attention and again a big ethical discussion in science. As previously said, this story also highlighted the importance of ethical and ownership laws in medical research.

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

I really think that we should help science, as much as we can, because it does help us in the end. However, having moral values is not bad either. If only medical researcher’s would ask, and give the person a proper compensation. Then I do not see anything wrong with helping science. The problem is that many people are too greedy, and they want all the glory to themselves. By the way, did I mention the doctor that took Mrs. Lack’s tissue also gave the tissue a code name? He called it HeLa cells. He was afraid that the family would sue him. Well of course, they would sue him. He did a crime. I would too.

I personally feel that it is neither ethical nor unethical for a company to decline to sell a useful drug just because they can make more money marketing drugs that are more widely needed. It really is up to the company what drugs they want to sell however; if a drug is available that will help people and or cure disease, it should be made available and companies should sell it. From a business stand point I can understand why they would want to market only drugs that are more widely needed as it will make them more money however; by offering or selling drugs that are useful, they will eventually gain more recognition and that could lead to a competitive advantage.

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.

There are many ethical issues in the healthcare field. These issues range from insurance coverage, senior care, childhood immunizations, beneficence, abortion, medicinal marijuana, honesty and medical research (Fritzsche, D., 2004). Today we will discuss the ethical concerns in only one aspect of heath care and that topic is research (Benatar, S., 2000). Medical research is necessary in order to make strides in health care, introduce new medications, to discover new symptoms and disorders and to test new treatment options for current medical problems. Students of medicine, universities and pharmaceutical companies conduct this research primarily. Much of this research is time consuming and costly, therefore obtaining funding is not

They are not obligated to provide these drugs to countries who cannot afford it. This is centered around the viewpoints of the Libertarian. Libertarians believe that they do not have to perform acts that are beneficial to others and their ideas/thoughts are more self-centered (Shaw & Berry, 2013, 115-118). Thus, supporting the idea that companies do not have to make drugs available in poor countries at little or no cost. These companies made their own profit selling and distributing drugs. Being that they made their own money and did not violate any laws, there is no sense of obligation to provide such drugs in poor

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.

Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner with regard to Vioxx? Why or why not? (In your answer, please address the company’s drug development and

Over the past couple of decades, a sudden change has started to take over the way business is done. The time when no rules applied, and anyone could do what they pleased at the cost of others or the environment is rapidly ending. Instead, companies today have become aware that it is essential for them to employ ethics and morality in their actions, if not they will be heavily scrutinized and rejected by the public. This way of thinking also applies to the pharmaceutical industry, which over the past century has been rapidly expanding. Do to the fact that this industry can determine the health and lives of millions of people, it is imperative that this industry follow an ethical and moral path.

Society expects drug companies to improve people’s well-being and to behave like a nonprofit company not overly concerned with making large profits. However, investors

Utilitarianism is relevant to the Merck Co. case in that it would have been important for Merck to predict whether researching the drug further, or playing it safe with other research, would produce the greatest benefit for the largest number of people. One side would argue that while river blindness patients are poor, treatment would be of great benefit to those infected (and their families/communities), so research is warranted. On the other hand, one might argue that it would be of equal or greater benefit to research medications for more common diseases where patients can afford medication. They may also argue that if the company went out of business as a result of ivermectin research that more people would be harmed from the loss of Merck’s other research and medications.

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.