Merck & Co Research Case

Introduction Every day people have to deal with ethical dilemmas that challenge him or her to decide what they believe the right choice is. In this case study, Merck & Co. has to make the decision of whether they should invest in further research to help save people affected by River Blindness or stop research because they know the probability of creating a profitable product is not likely since the population affected is poor. Our group believes that Merck & Co. should pursue the research because of all the lives that would be saved. The philosophy of Merck and Co. is, “We try never to forget that medicine is for people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered that, the larger they have been” (Trevino 346). Merck & Co. is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world and they didn’t earn that title by giving up. Gather the Facts In the Merck and River Blindness case, there is an ethical decision that must be made and the first step is to look at all the facts. River blindness is also known as onchocerciasis and is cause by worms that live in flies. Once a person is bit the worms can grow up to two feet long inside of a person and begin to reproduce. There are only two drugs that can kill the parasite, but both have serious side effects. The rivers started getting sprayed with insecticides, but the flies became immune to this spray. Merck and Co. is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies. To create the average medicine it takes about twelve years and two hundred million dollars to bring a drug to market. This company tries to focus on people not on profits because they know if they focus on people the profits will follow. This is important to remember when trying to find a medicine for rare diseases in poor countries. In this case, the company has created a drug that has killed this parasite in an animal and must decide whether or not to continue researching this rare drug. The problem with continuing research is the disease is found in poor countries, so they may not make a profit on the drug. Based on how this company operates they will continue researching the drug to cure this disease. Define the Ethical Issues and Consider your Character and Integrity In 1950 George W. Merck, chairman of the company his father founded, said “We try never to forget that medicine is for people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered that the larger they have been” (Trevino 346). Merck and Co having this philosophy as their core value system shows that they have good character as well as integrity. When dealing with people lives it is very important that your decisions and behavior remain ethical short and long term. Merck and Co could easily be dishonest about the medicine and profits that’s why it is so important for them to do the right thing. The company should always keep in mind if the decisions they make in private are corrupt and they are trying to keep it a secret then that’s an indication that something is not right. A company with good character and integrity should always feel at ease for their information to be released to the public. Developing drugs is a big deal because it is dealing with human life the company should ask themselves how will I be remembered when I’m gone. Identify the Affected Parties The option chosen by Merck’s Corporation to develop the drug and to give it for free had a high risk, and could absolutely compromise the corporation’s future. We were in a complex ethical dilemma between being financially healthy or following our main ethical values, which resulted in spending millions of dollars from private sources in research to discover the cure for river blindness. We also had to keep in mind that Merck’s decision affects not only the financial situation of the corporation itself, but also involves other external direct and indirect parties. The stakeholders are any group of people who are affected by a corporation’s decision. The stakeholders can be identified by the consequentialist and deontological thinking. Based on the consequentialist thinking, the ones who are going to experience directly harm or benefits will be the ones who got infected by the river blindness, their families, the community in which those people live in, and obviously Merck’s stockholders and employees. The ones who will be affected indirectly by Merck’s Corporation decision will be the Media and the Pharmaceutical market. The Deontologist thinking is based on the idea that even though the right decision would be to develop the drug to save people’s lives, Merck’s Corporation still had the rights in the situation to decide to develop or not develop the drug, since the money used in the research was coming from the corporation’s private sources . Putting also in practice the Lawrence Kohlberg theory, we were able to see that thousands of people were depending entirely on our efforts to be cured. We were the only ones who could help them to become healthy again. After putting ourselves in their places, we did not have any doubts about which one would be the right decision to be made in this situation. Identify the Consequences Merck & Co., a pharmaceutical company in the United States, was engaged in research to come up with a drug which could combat river blindness which is a rare disease. Most of the infected people were from poor parts of the world, but the company has still decided to continue research for the drug to combat river blindness. The research will be expensive, but creating the drug will benefit many people. Merck has tested ivermectin, a drug which killed the worms in horses, but has yet to research whether it could work on humans. Merck will continue research to further develop this drug for human use. The firm’s decision could result in different consequences. The short-term consequences of the firm's decision are that the firm will benefit from selling the existing products while researching the new product. Although it will be expensive, it is worth it to continue developing this medicine which will cure people. This could in the shortterm hurt the company financially while researching this new drug, but in the long-term it will pay off. The company has always focused on people not profits and will continue to do so. By researching and creating this drug we will help the 300,000 people who have become blind and another 18 million who are infected. There are also symbolic consequences related to this decision. The company is in the process of creating a product that will help people gain their health in case of any infection of the disease. George W. Merck claimed that the medicine was for people and the company is basing their decision on that. The company will stand behind what Merck stated and continue focusing on the people and not the profit. Identify the Obligations As a CEO of Merck Corporation, the decision to develop the ivermectin drug and was chosen based on the company’s ethical philosophy. Merck’s corporation values say that the corporation is not worried about profits and that medicine is for people, so even though we had the option to not follow through with the research to find the cure of the river blindness, it was not the right option to be chosen, since we would be failing with our “duty” of preserving and improving human life. By making the decision to develop the drug, Merck’s company went against the idea that a corporation’s primary responsibility is to take actions that best increase its shareholders’ wealth. It is because we knew that despite spending ten years, millions of dollars in research, and the real need for the drug the people would not be able to afford the drug. It showed that Merck’s Corporation did not think only in its own interests, but the society as a whole, and Merck’s ethical values went further than just doing whatever it takes to increase stockholders’ wealth. Corporations are legally obligated to act in a socially responsible manner, and there are laws regulating every business practice from, for example, what can be produced and how it can be produced to where and when it can be sold. Corporations independent of their fields, are required to have some social responsibilities. It includes, for example, the creation of jobs, expanding the local economy and the use of renewable resources that contributes to the environment, causing less pollution. In Merck’s Corporation decision, we tried to put every aspect together and follow our main values even though we were facing a complex situation. We always put the life of any human being in our priority and we never fail our main responsibility, which is to preserve and improve the human life. Think Creatively about Potential Actions To bring the average drug to the market, it takes $200 million in research and a time span of 12 years. Since resources are limited and research is not only costly, but also time consuming, companies pursue projects with promise. The World Health Organization estimated that more than 300,000 people were blind because of the river blindness disease and 18 million people were infected. There are enough people affected to make conducting research worth it, however the people affected live in the poorest parts of the world so they probably wouldn’t be able to pay for the medication. Since our group believes that Merck & Co. should pursue research we had to decide what some creative solutions could be. One creative solution is that Merck & Co. could start a program like the company Toms. For every pair of shoes a customer purchases from Toms, they give another pair to a child in need. Merck and Co. could purchase a cheap product such as bracelets and sell them at a price where they would make enough profit to give medicine away to those in need. Another solution is that Merck and Co. could start a program like PETA has where instead of sending money to help animals in need, people send money to sponsor a person to pay for the medication. One final solution is that Merck and Co. could charge a few extra dollars on successful medicines that they already have and use that extra money to pay for the River blindness medicine. Check your Gut The company’s decision was right to continue researching the drug for river blindness because of the ethics and values they pride themselves on. The research for the drug was expensive, but this new drug could change the lives for millions of people. Although the decision by the firm resulted in different consequences, the firm had no other option than to continue researching the drug because of the benefits. Conclusion Merck and Co. decided to base their decision on an ethical standpoint and not base it on their stakeholders. The company may suffer negative consequences from this decision, but the positive consequences far outweigh the negative. By continuing to research and develop the drug they could change the lives of millions of people. Also, the company is going to sell the product cheap, so the people living in poor countries will be able to get the drug. The creative solutions the company came up with allow them to do this. Overall, the company is satisfied with the decision to continue the drug research because of the amount of people that will benefit.