Merck and River Blindness

Consequentialist Perspective - From the consequentialist view point, there are many who will be profoundly affected if the drug is not produced by Merck & Co. Innumerable people will go blind and thus will greatly affect their quality of life. As stated, the parasites cause unbearable itching, which has led some people to commit suicide. Furthermore, these outcomes will affect more than the infected person. It will consequentially impair the lives of their loved ones. Undoubtedly, people with blindness can live a somewhat normal life, although they will also have to rely on others to provide aid with daily

Those target markets who rely on Johnson & Johnson health and medical needs are mostly patients, doctors, nurses and civilians. Therefore, the company need to sustain their products and services over all these years to ensure that lower income people and underprivileged patients are able to access on their medicines. This however requires the company to balance patient’s access and competitive dynamics in line with their need as the company need to have enough resources to keep on being innovating, creating new and better medicines and at the same time making sure there will be a fair return to the shareholder as well. Johnson & Johnson also work closely with the governments, physicians, non-government organizations and the international donors all around the world to provide its products within an affordable prices to its

Though these facts give a positive outlook, with progress comes many setbacks. The informative view of Guinea Worm Disease from this documentary gives a good example of global health. With the concern of health worldwide, some of the most critical factors in global health are the following: the determinants of health, measurement of health

Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

Merck is one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world today. Although encountered with success, it still faces many problems today while trying to be the market leader competing against its competition. While being research and development driven company, Merck now has to go beyond R&D to stay competitive in the pharmaceutical industry. The main issue that seems to come up is that how far it can progress with the dual challenge of hitting peak annual financial performance while keeping the research pipeline full continued to weigh on senior management. Through the late 80s to early 90s, Merck was able to boast

This paper will research the Product recall involving the Drug Company known as Merck, who produced the drug Vioxx use to treat osteoarthritis, and acute pain in adults. Looking at the relationships Merck had with government and lobbyist one can see what actions the drug company may have taken to lead them to this recall. In Addition, This paper will look at the actions Merck took in the approval process and recall of their drug. Using all information provided on this case this paper will decide whether Merck was ethically correct in bringing the drug to market and if they took the right steps in recalling it. Finally I will discuss the other stakeholder responsibilities and provide solutions to prevent this from happening in the future.

Critical issued of the appropriateness of conducting clinical trials in emerging countries has arisen over years. Being a leading company in biopharmaceutical industry, Novo Nordisk faces the critiques of whether it is justice to offshoring their clinical trials in developing economies. With the consistency of ethical principles brought up by Novo Nordisk, the company would be able to move their trials into emerging economies with the best interest for stakeholders. I will also propose ideas to Mr, Dejgaard for possible approach to media as well as the practices that Novo Nordisk could have changed over time at the end.

Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. Cultural relativism argues that no culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.

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

Also, the Rights theory is appropriate in this case, because one might argue that basic human rights are involved. Merck might be responsible to do research with ivermectin if it’s decided that some basic right is being broken.

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.

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

In the last several years, Merck’s individual R &D department has not been able to keep pace with declining revenues from existing products. It is only through Mergers and Acquisitions that Merck has supplemented this income.