Ethics Dilemma: The Side Effect of New Pharmaceutical - Essay Example

After constructing the report, I was informed that it needed to be altered to reflect a more favorable presentation of the pharmaceutical. After careful consideration, I am unable to revise the original report.

The following explanation reflects the ethical reasons I am unable to do so. In articulating my response I have made the greatest effort to remain objective and refrain from imbuing the reasoning with personal morality or religious influence. Still, personal reasons aside the risk associated with revising the report greatly outweighs the benefits. Recently, the risk associated with producing misguided reports was brought to light in the case of the Wakefield Paper Retraction. In this instance, “Two decades of an antivaccine movement were essentially built on this paper, creating a decrease in MMR vaccination and an increase in measles outbreaks…Despite countless other scientific studies…it’s been challenging to convince parents as to the lack of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine” ("The wakefield paper," 2010).

In this instance, the falsifying of the report created a paradigm shift that caused significant medical detriment to many individuals with autism. While this specific report may not have the wide-ranging implications of the Wakefield Paper, the potential for such a pervasive influence is an extremely viable concern. Another major reason why it will not be ethically responsible to change the contents of the report relates to the potential of such a change to detrimentally harm individuals. When considering historical instances of such medical malpractice, there are many examples wherein such practices had long-term harmful effects.

From as early as 1932, with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study where, “Researchers withheld treatment even when penicillin became widely available” (Resnik, 2010), it’s clear that the nature of medical responsibility is of the utmost importance. Numerous instances in the 20th century demonstrate instances where short-term financial gain was followed, and in later years detrimental consequences followed. In these regards, if the report were revised, while it might be possible for the company to gain short-term market share and a competitive advantage over other pharmaceutical dealers, history demonstrates that in the long-term the company will adversely affect the lives of many individuals and face significant financial liability.