Whistleblowing

Do you think this is a case of putting profits first? Explain. Maybe so, but since this is a well known Pharmaceutical Company, I am quite sure they did not want their name/reputation tarnished.

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

The time frame and cost to release a drug for sale into the United States market is enormous. After nearly 20 years and about one billion dollars spent, a drug manufacture can begin to market its product to consumers (Philipson & Sun, 2008). The reason behind these huge numbers is the drug approval process mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. Understanding the testing process will explain the long time frame and huge costs associated with drug approval.

Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:

The allegations by Robin Horvath against the Packo Family and Mrs. Dooley occurred in June of 2010 bringing to the forefront a civil case in which Mr. Horvath sued the Packo Family and Mrs. Dooley. Mr. Horvath sued the company over wrongful termination in relation to the whistleblower act. Mr. Horvath accused the Packo’s and Mrs. Dooley of misappropriations of funds, and defrauding the company of over $300,000. Mr. Horvath then notified the Board of Directors about this issue, and after bringing this issue to the board he was subsequently fired.

According to Harvard Law School’s article, approximately two-thirds of companies in the U.S. are affected by fraud. However, whistleblower Hotline can be as defense against management overrides. The article noted that whistleblower could be more effective if it become as apart of the corporate compliance programs and a reward of any monetary sanctions collected to motivate the employees Also, the article mention that the employees

Despite selfless goals, whistleblowers face quandaries on their professional and individual levels. Contemporarily, the bulk of current central health care fraud suits are qui tam actions (Ruhnka & Boerstler, 2000). Such actions have resulted in recovery of substantial amounts of government funds from fraudsters.

The FDA behaves in ways that enhance its reputation for protecting consumer safety and public health. As gauged by public opinion polls, the FDA remains one of the most popular agencies in government, regularly securing 70 percent or greater “approval” of its performance among sampled respondents.5 Buttressing this popularity are powerful symbolic lessons of history: The FDA is widely credited with saving thousands of American lives in its response to the sulfanilamide tragedy of 1937 and the thalidomide scandal of 1959–1961.6 Congress dramatically strengthened pharmaceutical regulations after each of these events. Thereby whether or not the agency deserves it, the FDA clearly possesses a reputation for protecting public health and consumer safety.

The various forms of retribution that whistle-blowers endure at the hands of employers both financially and psychologically for attempting to correct mismanagement, fraud, and dishonesty are often too much for the whistle-blower to bear. Careers are in jeopardy because individuals with strong ethics decide to pursue law suits against their employers. One example is where the US Forest Service employees found their careers ruined by either demotions or loss of jobs when caught speaking out in favor of the environment or sound science, or when

The Food and Drug Administration is a regulation agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s role in our nation is to be responsible for “protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation” ("What We Do."). One of the most important responsibilities and the topic I will be discussing throughout this paper is drug regulation. The Food and Drug Administration approves drugs that are intended for use in diagnosis, cure, relief, treatment, or prevention of disease, and is intended to affect the function of the body. In order to do so, The Food and Drug Administration reviews drug manufacturer’s via application to put drugs on the market; therefore, a drug may not be sold or marketed unless it has and remains approved by the FDA. Even though a drug has been approved does not mean it will remain on the market, drugs have the likelihood to be recalled. For example, when you see those late night personal injury lawyer commercials saying, “If you have been prescribed and taken said drug, and experienced any of these side effects such as blood clots, seizures, etc., you may be entitled to compensation.” those drugs have usually been recalled due to adverse effects

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.

You’re right Timothy. But sometimes it takes more courage for the employees to speak up about unethical conduct of their superiors. Probably because they’re afraid of being retaliated like getting fired from work or demoted. Nevertheless there are laws like Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 and Dodd-Frank (Section 922) that would protect whistleblowers from the retaliation of their employers and even reward if the whistleblowers can provide the original information to the SEC .

Jackson and Raftos (1997) referred to whistle blowing as an avenue of last resort. Employees find themselves in these situations when the authorities at their organisations have failed to take actions on reported issues affecting that organisation. Wimot (2000) likened whistleblowing to a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum whistleblowing would only cause minimal pain and scars on the stakeholders and organisation while on the other end is the worst scenario where the whistleblowing effects are turbulent and often experienced to be negative to all those involved (ibid).

Whistle blowing is the act of an employee exposing a company’s misconduct, illegal activity, or threats to the public. Whistle blowing is protected under Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) act of 2002 section 806. There are two different types of whistleblowing, internal and external. Internal is when an employee discovers misconduct and reports it to a supervisor or executive to handle the issue. External whistleblowing is when an employee reports a company’s misconduct to external parties such as law enforcement or media. O’Brien had to complete both types of whistleblowing. When he reported it to Amgen’s upper management and no action was taken, he then sought out legal representation to discuss the issue and his wrongful termination.

The whistleblower him or herself must be carefully scrutinized. What are the personal and the professional reputations of the whistleblower? What is the motive driving the whistleblower? Is it to benefit the client or the organization, or is it a need for attention or revenge? Is the whistleblower's cause seen as legitimate and significant by trustworthy colleagues and friends? Is the whistleblower aware of the potential consequences of blowing the whistle and still willing to accept responsibility for actions taken?