Medicine Manufacturer

Step I: Identify the Facts of the Case (Diagnosing the Situation)

Ricardo D'Amato is a high salary executive who works for a multinational pharmaceutical company, Jones and Jones. His job is to certify that any new products are ready for approval and registration process and for subsequent marketing. His office is responsible for sending this new product for approval by each of the European government competent authorities (Similar to the FDA in the US). Each government tests the drugs to assure safety and effectiveness before rejection or approval of the product.

The Swiss Drug Regulatory Agency is one of the most important of the government where the drugs are tested. The reason for it is that many other regulatory agencies will approve a drug if the Swiss agency approves it since it is very respected. D'Amato found himself on a controversy that involved his own company, the Swiss agency as well as one of the workers of the agency, Dr. Koenig, who at the same time works as a consultant for Jones and Jones. The issue started because D'Amato refused to authorize a $15,000 payment on a contract Jones and Jones has with Dr. Koenig. D'Amato believes it is unethical to make a payment to a person who is currently involved in the approval of several product registrations for Jones and Jones. Despite the arguments portrayed by Dr. Koenig and D'Amato's work colleagues, he still believes that these practices are unacceptable. He even asked for an investigation by the Intercantonal Office of Medicaments in Switzerland against his own company practices. This led to nothing, they agreed that many pharmaceutical products have been approved after the hiring of a consultant, but they did not find any indication that these approvals were made under fraudulent circumstances. Now D'Amato is caught up in the middle of a moral discussion, he believes that the whole system is corrupt and that it is unethical to pay Dr. Koenig. At the same time, his supervisor has decided to give him to make the payment or leave the company, giving someone who will agree to do the payment on his position.

At this point of the paper I think there needs to be a few clarifications to keep on discussing this issue. From now on I will assume that this truly is a case of bribery, although everyone except for D'Amato argues that it is not bribery. I will also assume that Jones and Jones is not the only company doing similar things in the industry, in fact, it is common practice on the industry. But I will also assume that there are a few agencies and companies that are not involved.

A. Who are the parties involved: individuals, institutions, and so forth.

There are several parties involved to this issue. The four more directly involved, ethically speaking, would be Jones and Jones, the Swiss Drug Regulatory Agency, D'Amato, and Dr. Koenig. Also all of the competition, as well as other agencies are relevant parties. But there are many other parties affected indirectly by this issue, all the customers who may buy the drug, as well as the workers. In case the bribery was happening and someone decided to prove the company was acting corrupt, it could make them go bankrupt, leaving all the workers without a job. There is also an important influence on the economy, since based on the salaries of all the people involved on this industry, many other are affected and see their revenues increased or decreased based on what these people consume. There are many other parts involved and this list could go on and on but I believe that the ones mentioned above are the most crucial ones.

Step II: Identify the Implications of the Four Moral Appeals to the Case

A. Appeal to Virtues and Legitimate Self-Interests

Jones and Jones: although I am focusing here only on Jones and Jones, this section could apply to any competitor that practices similar methods of bribery. As the company that D'Amato works for, it looks like in his opinion they are working the approvals of new drugs through corruption. The company is prioritizing its self-interest instead of prioritizing the needs of the customers, who are not getting the best products and might even consume hazardous drugs. If they do not keep on with these practices, fewer drugs will be approved and they will lose a huge amount of money. Not only this, but this will give an advantage to its main competitors since it is very common to use this methods in the industry. As Aristotle would explain it, moral virtue is the state of character that lies in the mean of two opposite vices. In order to develop a virtue, one must fall into the habit of always choose the position that lies between the two means. Just in the same way someone, or in this case a company, can fall into the habit of always choosing the vice. The more a company or a person falls into a habit, the harder it will be to leave that habit. In this case, the pharmaceutical company has fallen into one of the extremes, which is the reason why now they cannot do the virtuous thing. Since they have been practicing bribery for such a long period of time, now a big part of their income depends on these briberies. This has drastically reduced their freedom to choose.

Honest pharmaceutical companies: Although it seems to be a corrupt market on itself, there are always a few companies that try to do the right thing. These companies as well have a conflict between their self-interests, and their virtues. But on this case, their virtues prevail. Of course they want to make profit; and if at the same time they can help people live better lives through the use of their drugs, that would be great. They do not believe that bribery is the right way. They try to get approved based on the right methods, and not by using bribery. Their most important virtues would be honesty, integrity and courage. It takes quite some courage to say no to bribery and try to do the right thing.

Swiss Drug Regulatory Agency: The same as with the companies can work with the agencies; this section actually could apply to any government agency that practices this methods. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the agency to any new products by Jones and Jones if they decided to quit all of the payments and consulting. They are going through a moral issue that has a huge economic incentive. Although I am sure that consulting with regulators is regular business for the, they should really be careful with how this consulting works. Is it really consulting? Or is it bribery? In case it is bribery, which seems very possible, the Swiss agency could lose all its credibility and prestige. It is interesting to see that the situation of the agency seems to be similar to that of Arthur Andersen in the accounting scandal involving Enron.