Merck Ethics

INTRODUCTION

When Merck released the drug Vioxx, the intention was to create the leading drug in the treatment of arthritis. Vioxx went through the standard process of clinical trials and the results were not as Merck expected. Although, side effects are normal bi-products of medication, full disclosure is the duty of the pharmaceutical manufacturer. In the following paper, I will discuss Merck's actions regarding full disclosure and whether or not those actions were ethical.

FACTS

When Merck discovered the side effects from the drug Vioxx and how the company proceeded with the release and sales of Vioxx provides insight into the possibility that Merck acted unethically in its business decisions. Merck had knowledge that Vioxx was not safe in 1998. That same year several patients died while using Vioxx. The FDA approved Vioxx for use in 1999, which allowed Merck to aggressively market Vioxx. Merck failed to inform doctors of the significant side effects of the drug. Merck had established their own clinical in hopes of proving that Vioxx contributed to less heart and stomach issues than commonly used naproxen products. In reality, 79 Vioxx patients had severe heart ailments or had died compared to the 41 patients who were taking other forms of naproxen.

By 2001, safety concerns were beginning to emerge and during the next three years several studies linked cardiovascular problems to Vioxx. In 2004, Merck discontinued the sale of Vioxx. To counter some of the backlash that comes from the publishing of the VIGOR study, Merck released a statement before the study was released, claiming that the VIGOR results were atypical. Merck's decision to move forward with the knowledge of the safety risks, involved putting together a marketing campaign to mitigate the spotlight on Vioxx. Sales representatives were trained to elude questions about the Vioxx clinical trails, current studies and the significant risks to patients. To establish if Merck's actions were ethical in spite of favorable judgments in several lawsuits, I will discuss if Merck followed any of the guidelines for making ethical decisions.

MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS

The first guideline in making ethical decision is the consideration the law- were the actions legal? In reviewing the facts, there was not a conscious effort to break any laws in the manufacturing, marketing or sale of Vioxx.

Next, were the action taken by Merck's consistent with the spirit of the law? Merck did not reinforce the societal values that law seeks to protect. They created a marketing campaign and took countermeasures to protect reputation. Merck did not include information on Vioxx's dangerous side effects. Top executives admitted that safety risks were evident, but hoped that internal studies could present the risks that were attributed to Vioxx was common to all drugs that contained naproxen.

We can only speculate on the consciences of the managers making theses tough decisions. WE do know that Merck was very much aware of the potential medical risks patients would experience once the drug was released. Utilitarianism ethics states that the decision should be based on the greatest amount good for greatest amount people . Considering the number of potential patients and their families affected by Vioxx in comparison to Merck employees and the stockholders, the decision to release Vioxx made was not ethical decision under the utilitarian model of ethics.

The last