The Drug Marketing Strategies of Pharmaceutical Companies - Assignment Example

It is a well known fact that the drug marketing strategies of Pharmaceutical companies often border on the unethical and are rarely above board in the strict sense of the word. For instance, the tactics of drug companies comprise several aspects like DTCDA (Direct to Consumer Drug Advertising), unethical recruitment of physicians, physicians targeted promotions, researchers’ conflicts of interests and finally, data manipulation during drug trials, which are by no means ethical from any frame of reference. Activists and advocacy groups have long questioned the motives of Big Pharma as they market drugs without adequate regard to the effects that such marketing practices have on the patients and consumers. In their pathological pursuit of profits, drug companies have indeed thrown caution to the winds and have sacrificed ethics at the altar of profits. This paper examines the unethical drug marketing strategies used by Big Pharma by analyzing them from the perspective of utilitarianism and deontology. The emphasis in this paper is on finding out if the drug marketing strategies are justified according to the philosophical theories discussed and whether they satisfy the minimum requirements for ethical behavior. Note that there is no special emphasis on whether these strategies are completely overboard. Instead, the analysis is around whether they meet the basic criterion for ethical behavior and good conduct. The five tactics used by drug companies to market their products can be categorized according to the potential for harm that they cause to patients. This categorization would yield that the following is the order (from the least harmful to the most harmful): physicians targeted promotion, DTCDA, unethical recruitment of physicians, researchers’ conflicts of interests, and data manipulation in clinical trials (Chiu, 2005). Considering the fact that the intended beneficiaries of these strategies who are the patients stand to suffer the most because of these tactics, it is worth asking whether the drug companies have the interests of the shareholders alone in mind when they resort to these practices. The fact that they favor the interests of the few (shareholders) at the expense of the many (the patients) clearly indicates that their marketing strategies are not conscionable from either a utilitarian or deontological point of view. This would be discussed in detail in the succeeding paragraphs. Suffice to say that drug companies are indeed crossing the line as far as ethics and unethical behavior is concerned and their actions cannot be justified from any perspective. An example of the unethical marketing practices would be the targeted advertising and marketing aimed at arthritic patients and convincing them to take drugs like Vioxx that have longer term side effects on the patients. The way in which drug companies marketed the said drug and its variants (it needs to be noted that most drug companies are into arthritis alleviating drugs) and given the fact that arthritic patients are vulnerable to such offers because of the intense pain that they experience, these marketing efforts reek of immorality and an absence of a conscience on the part of the drug marketers. The example of the marketing practices with reference to the drug above is a useful starting point for the analysis of the broader marketing practices from utilitarian and deontological perspectives. Utilitarianism is a branch of philosophy that advocates the virtues of universal good and causing as much happiness to a greater number of people and promoting social welfare. The pioneers of this school of philosophy were the Eighteenth Century Philosopher and Social Thinker, Jeremy Bentham and his follower John Stuart Mill who was a nineteenth century philosopher. The utilitarian’s posit the view that actions should be pursued if they result in the overall good of the people and promote social welfare and happiness for the maximum number of people. By this standard, it is apparent that marketing of drugs like Vioxx is harmful to society at large because numerous studies have shown that prolonged use of such drugs increases the risks of heart attacks and strokes though the drug companies advertized it as safe for the arthritic patients (Markel, 2006). This is one example of the unethical drug marketing practices of Big Pharma wherein they sought to increase their bottom-line at the expense of the patients. This is a clear violation of utilitarian principles where the interests of the majority are not taken into consideration and the actions of the drug companies are intended to enhance the interest of the few (shareholders) and ignoring the interests of millions of patients who were at risk by taking this drug. Utilitarian thought has been used to justify business actions by invoking the cost benefit approach wherein the benefits to a large section of society are deemed to justify the costs involved as well as the consequences (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). Hence, the makers of Vioxx, Merck, may claim that their drug is beneficial to many patients and the overall good that comes out can justify the incidence of side effects in a minority (Markel, 2006). However, utilitarian principles also talk about suffering and including the human cost of those who are affected by such unethical practices. Hence, to discount the fact that drugs like Vioxx cause suffering to many and instead proclaim that it follows the standard of social welfare is foolhardy. Further, extensive research has shown that even for the patients on whom it was supposed to work, longer term side effects were visible after a few years (Markel, 2006). This is indicative of the fact that drug companies resort to subterfuge and disinformation to promote their drugs. Hence, it is clear that the unethical drug marketing strategies of Big Pharma are simply not conscionable from a utilitarian point of view. Turning to the other philosophical theory, Deontology which advocates absolutism in guiding human action, we find that the principles of deontology as proposed by thinkers like the great German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, propound the virtues of actions that are fair, truthful, have a respect for life and are all about sticking to the moral absolute no matter the consequences. Contrast this with the utilitarian principles that advocate consequences of actions as opposed to the action itself in deontology (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). If we apply deontological principles to the marketing practices of Big Pharma we find that they fall short of several of them. Kantian thought maintains that we should not violate certain fundamental rights at any cost. Hence, advertising drugs to unsuspecting patients and making them take the drug in a coercive manner (by way of influencing and recruiting physicians) is a clear violation of this right and hence cannot be justified at any cost. The other aspect of putting human lives at risk because of the marketing tactics of Big Pharma is simply not acceptable in a deontological sense. Finally, the cover up of the unethical practices as was evident in the way the drug companies like Merck sought to underplay the Vioxx issue is simply unethical and immoral from a deontological sense (Markel, 2006). Since deontology advocates absolute rules for human behavior and according to Kant, a person should never lie no matter what the circumstances and even when such lying seems to produce a good result. Hence there are no exceptions in the Kantian scheme of thinking and so the drug companies can never hope to convince deontologists about the correctness of their actions. This is not to say that they would find much solace in utilitarianism as well since utilitarians’ hold the principle of maximum welfare and social justice which the drug companies are clearly violating (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). A final analysis of the unethical practices of drug companies would also reveal that they resort to selective release of information, suppression of critical facts, obfuscation in the name of confidentially and other such practices which go against the grain of openness and transparency that the philosophers surveyed here so cherish. It needs to be remembered that these philosophies were articulated during the Enlightenment or the Renaissance where a flowering of human consciousness happened and given that many thinkers in our present age talk about a new renaissance happening now, any attempts at misrepresentation, suppression and selective disclosure ought to be condemned and penalized. It is only when there is a free and fair exchange of information and facts and not opinions can there be a movement towards the cherished ideals laid down in these philosophies. This is something that the drug companies can surely participate in when one considers the raison d’être for their existence is promotion of social welfare. When they are in the business of saving lives, they might as well follow these simple principles and not mammon alone. What we need is conscious capitalism and not profits before people and the resultant loss of public confidence in the drug companies. In conclusion, while it is certainly not the case that all actions of all drug companies are unethical, it is certainly the case that some actions of some drug companies border on the unethical and if the bad apples are removed and the industry is brought in line with ethical norms of behavior, the lofty ideals of utilitarianism and deontology can be actualized. References Chiu, H. (2005). Selling Drugs: Marketing Strategies in the Pharmaceutical Industry and their Effect on Healthcare and Research. E x p l o r a t i o n s : A n U n d e r g r a d u a t e R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 89-94. Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2008). Law and ethics in the Business Environment. New York: Cengage Learning. Markel, D. (2006). Ethical Implications of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising. Apothecarian Herbals , 1-12. Read More