Construction and Evaluation of Ethical Arguments - Case Study Example

Construction and Evaluation of Ethical Arguments Moral and Ethical Values at Stake Based on Merck’s Social Roles The social roles of the company are based on Merck’s vision of improving and protecting human life: “Helping the world be well” (“Our Values and Standards” 27). In essence, it seeks to be a company that improves life through attaining scientific excellence, operating with high integrity standards, broadening access to their products, and using different workforces (“Our Values”). What is morally at stake for this case is the moral value of creating a drug that has no financial gain and may even have negative consequences for users, if this drug has side effects. The main ethical concern, furthermore, is that the company might be going beyond their social roles, if it is creating a drug that lacks government and international health organization support. It does not need to both create a drug and distribute it for free because it may lead to loss of money for shareholders. The company may also be accused of pushing a product that public agencies do not believe in or support, which may indicate that the former may have a hidden agenda, such as using those who need it as part of an undisclosed clinical trial. It is a fact that local governments and the World Health Organization are not interested in the drug that Merck wants to make. Despite this lack of interest, Merck wants to continue with this drug. The eagerness to develop this medicine despite all odds may be seen as an issue of nobility or questionability. Merck could be doing a noble act, or its motives may be questioned because it is creating a drug without any profit and with additional expenses. Merck should also consider other options in producing the drug and shouldering its distribution through the use of several relevant moral standards, ethical principles, and ethical perspectives. Relevant Moral Standards and Ethical Principles After discussing what is morally and ethically at stake, it is essential to also identify the moral standards and ethical principles that are relevant to this case. The pertinent moral standards are equal respect for all people, by not using them as mere means to profit-centered ends, but treating them as ends, and the protection of human life above all. Respect for all people by treating them as ends and not as means is based on the ethical perspectives of Kantianism and human rights (Mieth 18). Protection of human life is part of human rights and the mission of Merck in helping people have better lives. Protection of human life above all underlines that human life is more important than making money from human lives. The relevant ethical principles for this case are protection of life, beneficence, equality, truthfulness, and full disclosure. Protection of life is important to this case because medicine can either be good or bad for its consumers. The drug must be high-quality to protect human life. Beneficence is essential to this case because it ensures that the research design is scientifically sound and that the risks of the drug are acceptable when compared to its benefits (Turner 6). Equality refers to treating people equally and based on their needs (Icheku 78). It is important to this case because of the impact of the medicine on millions of people. Truthfulness refers to honesty to stakeholders which includes full disclosure. These principles are valuable because Merck is doing something beyond financial profits entails honesty in its drug development procedures to remove doubts about its real agenda. Consequences of Alternative Responses The alternative responses concern no action and modified actions, while their consequences are evaluated according to their impacts on different stakeholders. The alternative responses are the following: (1) Not developing the drug, since it does not offer any monetary gain; (2) Developing the drug only if local governments and the World Health Organization (WHO) will provide or act as distribution centers; and (3) Developing the drug with full disclosure of the development process, including clinical trials and their outcomes, and shouldering the distribution system costs too at first, but with the intention of handing over distribution to interested government and/or non-government organizations (NGOs). The main consequences of Option 1 are: (1) better for shareholders because their money is not spent on “free” projects, but (2) bad for people who need it, especially the poor in many Third-World countries. For Option 2, the consequences are: (1) better for Merck because this will lower its expenses if it will no longer spend on distribution costs; (2) questionable benefit for shareholders; and (3) positive effect for millions of people who are affected by river blindness. For Option 3, the consequences are: (1) better for Merck because it supports its belief in transparency and helping people live well; (2) questionable benefit for shareholders, unless this contributes to better corporate image that can have direct/indirect effects on company reputation and employee satisfaction, which may have positive impacts on revenues and employee performance; (3) positive consequence for end consumers if the drug cures them; and (4) potential negative effects, if the drug does not go through proper clinical trial and get more people sick than curing them. Evaluation of Alternatives: Towards the Greatest Good In order to evaluate the alternatives, the moral standards and ethical principles will be applied for every option mentioned. Option 1 does not respect all people because it means that Merck only makes medicine for those who can afford it. It costs $200 million to bring a new drug to the market and this is an expense that not all shareholders may approve of. This option does not also protect human life, since Merck can produce a valuable drug for poor people, but it opposes such action. Option 1 does not support the mentioned moral standards. The next evaluation is regarding ethical principles. Option 1 does not protect life because Merck resists producing a drug that can save millions of lives. Beneficence, truthfulness, and full disclosure are not applicable to this option because the drug is not developed. This option does not promote equality, however, because Merck does not provide an essential service of developing a drug that can help many people. This option does not meet ethical principles. As for Option 2, it respects people because it tries to help them by developing a drug. By creating a drug, it also protects human life. However, since the process of drug development depends on finding concrete distributors, these benefits are on shaky grounds. Option 2 can meet moral standards, if the drug gets developed. If not, it does not help those who need the drug the most. Option 2 protects life conditionally and promotes equality, beneficence, truthfulness, and full disclosure on uncertain grounds. As long as there are sure distributors, the drug can help contribute to the protection of life and the promotion of equality. Beneficence is not yet assured, however, because the research design depends on the existence of distributors. Option 2 has an uncertain way of attaining ethical principles. Option 3 meets moral standards because it is ready to disclose more information to the public and respects human life above all. It respects people because it does not treat them as means to ends, but ends who deserve to be saved. It is assumed that this option celebrates the value of human life more than the monetary value of making money. In addition, this option also protects human life because it creates a life-saving drug. The disclosure of information about drug development may also enhance the efficacy of the drug because of emphases on accountability and transparency. Besides moral standards, Option 3 meets all ethical principles. It protects human life because it includes disclosure of all tests and outcomes. It has beneficence because it shows how the drug trial works and its outcomes. It attains equality because it helps poor people get the medicine they need. Option 3 promotes equality too because it enables others to help in distributing it. This option is more sustainable likewise because Merck allows other partners in distributing the drug. The idea is shared responsibility that aligns with the concept of equality (Lee and Hunt 22). This option, moreover, is truthful because it demonstrates the processes and effects of clinical trials with full disclosure. It does not exploit the poor because Merck is willing to illustrate the measures it took to create a drug that is safe and effective for end consumers (Snyder 256). Option 3 is not assumed as a failure-proof design for the perfect drug, but it is better than not opening the clinical trials to public evaluation and acceptance. Ethical Perspectives Option 3 is the best option because it also satisfies human rights and Kantian ethics. Option 3 makes the drug accessible, available, and quality for end consumers (Lee and Hunt 225). The drug will be available because Merck does its social responsibility of helping the world be well by creating a drug that can help millions of people. This option also makes the drug accessible in the long run because it is assumed that the distributors would help increase access to the drug. For instance, NGOs can reach more communities, since they have access to far-flung areas through their networks. Option 3 can also improve the quality of the drug because it increases beneficence. If Merck divulges its research design and outcomes, it can become more self-aware of its actions and avoid doing procedures or activities that may be construed as self-serving or deceitful. Option 3 satisfies human rights because it does not think about the drug as something that is profit-making, but aligned to protecting the human rights of the poor towards access to free, quality medicine. As for Kantian ethics, Option 3 can also meet the categorical imperatives. This option does not see users as means to an end (Mieth 18). Merck could be doing this purely for the mission of paying forward. If it already made and continue to make billions from its business, then, to spend $200 million in bringing this drug to the public is a small sum to give back to the world. Merck could be making a drug simply because it truly wants the world to be well by starting with making the poor well. Moreover, this act can be universalized, which can help pharmaceutical companies see their social roles in helping increase equality in the world by reducing the health gap between the rich and the poor. Merck is doing an important role of being an equalizer of the world through developing and distributing this free medicine to developing countries. Finally, this option meets an important duty of helping save lives and improving the quality of human life. This option does not want to focus on making money, but it is assumed that Merck truly wants to do this with the aim of helping people. The full implications of this option are that it symbolizes a company that wants to do good because it is good and because this option has good consequences. This paper does not assume that Merck may not gain something from this because it can through a positive corporate image. A positive corporate image can improve sales and employee morale and these effects, in turn, can also be good for employee performance and organizational performance. This paper does not disregard, however, the noble intentions of Merck and how its leaders truly desire to be socially responsible corporate leaders, an act that can and should be universalized, so that indeed, the world will be well. Works Cited Icheku, Vincent. Understanding Ethics and Ethical Decision-Making. Indiana: Xlibris, 2011. Print. Lee, Joo-Young, and Paul Hunt. “Human Rights Responsibilities of Pharmaceutical Companies in Relation to Access to Medicines.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40.2 (2012): 220-233. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. Mieth, Corinna. “The Double Foundation of Human Rights in Human Nature.” Human Rights and Human Nature. Marion Albers, Thomas Hoffman, and Jörn Reinhardt. New York: Springer, 2014. 11-22. Print. “Our Values.” Merck, no date. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. “Our Values and Standards: The Basis of Our Success.” Merck, no date. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. Snyder, Jeremy. “Exploitations and their Complications: The Necessity of Identifying the Multiple Forms of Exploitation in Pharmaceutical Trials.”Bioethics 26.5 (2012): 251-258. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. Turner, J. Rick. New Drug Development: An Introduction to Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2010. Print. Read More