PHI 445 Week 3 Assignment Case Analysis

PHI 445 Week 3 Assignment Case Analysis, Pharmaceutical Week 3 Assignment Case Analysis for Merck Pharmaceuticals NAME PHI 445 Personal & Organizational Ethics Instructor DATE Introduction Social Responsibility is defined as “the obligation an organization’s management team has towards the welfare and interests of the society in which it operates.” (Business Dictionary, 2018) For Merck Pharmaceutical, social responsibility is taken very seriously. Merck Pharmaceuticals are one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, having discovered many lifesaving medications. Merck’s objective is to “support policies that promote the discovery of innovative medicines and vaccines and make these products available to all who need them.” (Merck, 2018) In this case study Merck has discovered a medication that could eradicate an entire disease called River Blindness. River blindness affects millions of individuals in Africa and is caused by a parasite that is transmitted through black flies. The parasite lives in the skin of the body causing severe itching and eventually moving to the eye, causing scaring and thus, blindness. Merck discovered that a medication called Mectizan could rid the body of all parasites with one pill and keep them from infestation for a years’ time. (Annual Review, 2012) The problem, however, is that the people affected by River Blindness were “the poorest of the poor” and would not be able to afford to buy this medication. (Annual Review, 2012) This created a conflict for Merck; were they to remain faithful to their investors and market the medication even though profits were unlikely, or were they to provide the medication to those who needed it? Choosing to give the medication away would cost the shareholders money because there is still cost involved with research and production that would not be recovered through profits. Choosing to market the medication would still cost just as much, but the likelihood of the medication being bought was low. Merck founder, George Merck, said “Never forget, medicine is for the People, not for the profits.” (Merck, 2018) With this philosophy in mind, Merck decided to provide the drug, free of cost, to all those who need it, in an effort to cure and eradicate the disease. Under the theory of John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, it is the authors opinion that Merck is morally correct. Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-73) believed that one should “bring about the most happiness we can--that insofar as we fall short of this mark, we violate our moral obligations.” (Macleod, 2016) By this he meant that one should do things in a way that it promotes the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, even if it means one has to make sacrifices. For example, say there are 4 hungry people and one of them has an apple. That one person could eat the entire apple and sustain their hunger, or they could share the apple and give some comfort to everyone. Under the rule of Utilitarianism, the individual should share that apple with everyone in the group because this creates the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, even though that person has to sacrifice. As written in an article, “In utilitarian ethics, outcomes justify the means or ways to achieve it.” (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016) Merck, and their decision to provide Mectizan for free, is a prime example of Utilitarianism. At the sacrifice of any possible profits to its shareholders, Merck decided that it was better to treat the thousands of individuals affected with this horrible parasite, than to allow it to go untreated when the treatment was available. Had Merck decided to market the drug, they may have made some profits, but the reality was the individuals that needed it most “were impoverished and could not even come close to affording $1 per dose.” (Rea, Zhang, & Baras, 2010) So selling the drug wouldn’t bring desirable, or morally, good results for anyone. The decision to give the drug away at least has a good result for some of the parties involved and the possibility of eradicating an entire disease from the world. If Merck would have applied Deontology to their decision, the outcome would have been different. Deontology suggests that one is born with a moral code of knowing right from wrong and that ‘duty’ is what drives us to make the right choice. (Fieser, 2015) Under this theory, Merck’s duty would have been to his shareholders and making them profit, because that is what he was hired to do. The decision to give Mectizan away for free takes money directly from the shareholders, therefore being the wrong choice. Applying this theory would make Merck morally wrong for sacrificing the profits of their shareholders to treat thousands of ill individuals. Merck’s goal in the research and manufacturing of drugs is to find solutions to the worlds medical needs; profits come second. In this case, the leaders of Merck decided to forgo any profits and help thousands of sick individuals. This case supports the theory of utilitarianism because it creates the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, at a sacrifice. The means justify the end. This is the basis of the utilitarian theory. Under this theory, Merck is morally right for providing the drug at no cost to those who need it. Resources: Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from Rea, P., Zhang, V., & Baras, Y. (2010, July-August). Ivermectin and river blindness (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. American Scientist, 98, 294-303. Retrieved from Annual Reviews. (2012, February 3). A conversation with P. Roy Vagelos (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [Video file]. Retrieved from Merck (2018) Retrieved from Macleod, Christopher, "John Stuart Mill", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Mandal, J., Ponnambath,D.K., & Parija, S.C. (2016 Jan-Jun) Utilitarian and Deontological Ethics in Medicine. Department of Microbiology, PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. Doi:10.4103/.. Retrieved from