Cheap Medicine for World's Poor - Report Example

GlaxoSmithKline In the modern world, pharmaceuticals are incredibly important. They keep people strong and healthy, and allow others to recover from terrible injuries or diseases. They also make our lives more convenient and easy, fixing problems that up until recently people simply accepted as an unfortunate by-product of lived life. Drugs in one shape or form have been around for thousands of years, but never have we seen so many, so widely available. How they are regulated and their safety ensured is a subject of increasingly public concern and interest and has necessitated the creation of large national institutions to do so. Also, as drug use expands, questions about the ethics of pharmaceuticals have been debated more and more in the public sphere and elsewhere. Some argue diseases are being made up and advertising is manipulative. Critics point to “Big Pharma” manipulating research in order to increase their profit margins. These are all very important and major contemporary issues that must be addressed when we look at a topic as broad and profound as pharmaceuticals and pharmacology. GlaxoSmithKline, the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world has a big stake in all of these issues. How it is performing socially and how it delivers results to stakeholders are all important issues to consider. In the past, drugs were never very expensive (Law 2006). Before the 1970s, most people were not concerned by them because they would only take a drug for a short amount of time. But as more drugs were prescribed for chronic, long-lasting illnesses, the costs became heavier and heavier for people to bear. Soon there was legislation introduced to require cheaper, generic drugs to be substituted for expensive designer ones. This also eventually led to Medicare coverage for drugs. GlaxoSmithKline produces a number of drugs to try to eradicate chronic diseases. Many of their drugs, however, are somewhat expensive. One of the things they have been trying to do in recent years is to lead the charge against lymphatic filariasis, a deadly infectious tropical disease. This has cost a lot of money and has had good results to date (GSK). The story of the growth and development of pharmaceuticals has largely been an American one. As of 2008, the United States is the world leader in medical research, especially in pharmaceutical development. American companies create most of the world’s most innovative drugs and the FDA stamp of approval is sought by drug makers worldwide because this organization is so respected. Pharmaceuticals in the United States are regulated by an organization called the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA is an agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services and as such it is responsible for protecting and promoting the nations public health. GlaxoSmithKline works closely with them (Law 2006). It regulated not just the clinical trials that decide whether or not a new drug is safe for consumption, but it also regulates the advertising drug companies use. This is one of the reasons, for example, when you see a drug commercial on TV and many happy people having a picnic or an older couple walking romantically along the beach there is also a voice that says, “Warning! [name of drug] may cause vomiting, loss of appetite, impotence, insomnia, dizziness, diarrhoea, etc.” Companies are legally required to list the potential side effects of their drugs. These days there is a lot of controversy over the political, medical, and cultural influence of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical companies. Because this is now a big business, people are concerned that certain ethical standards may be being replaced by a nasty business sense. There have been some accusations of influence on doctors and other health professionals through drug representatives and salespeople, including the giving of gifts to doctors, paying for and sponsoring conferences, for example. Doctors are often hired and paid to sit on the boards of various pharmaceutical companies thus providing an appearance of medical credibility to a company or product that may not independently possess it. The pharmaceutical industry also has thousands of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., that lobby Congress and try protect their own interests and weaken laws that might limit their profit or make it more expensive and difficult to sale drugs. The pharmaceutical industry spent $855 million, more than any other industry, on lobbying activities from 1998 to 2006, according to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity (Dilanian 2007). Some critics have said that the effect of drug marketing to physicians makes physicians biased to prescribe the marketed drugs even when others might be cheaper or better for the patient. There have also been unfortunate accusations of over-medicalisation, and making up diseases that don’t actually exist. For example, restless leg syndrome—a.k.a. a case of the jimmy legs—has been considered by some to be a “new” disease that needs treatment. In fact a drug has even been developed to treat this common condition which some say is just an effort to expand the market for medications. Some people also feel that anti-anxiety, anti-shyness drugs promoted by drug companies may also be going too far in the direction of coming up with a cure for every single up and down in the course of life (Dilanian 2007). They argue that every problem can’t be solved and that if you take a pill for everything society will soon be full of zombies. The debate is about the market: are drug companies simply filling a need—or are they aggressively creating and manipulating the need? This is an open question. There is also a big concern about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the scientific process of things. Some say that studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are much more likely to report positive results. Some critics also say that this influence has also extended to training of doctors medical schools. There is a lot of debate on various campuses about how much influence drug companies should have in these various schools where the next generation of doctors are being taught. That may be true, but GSK has gone a long way to improving its reputation with its February 2009 policy change. At that time it announced that it would reduce the price of its drugs by 25 per cent in 50 poor countries (Guardian 2009). It understands just how important its products are to some of the poorest people in the world. Pharmaceuticals have been around for millennia in one shape or another, and over all it can probably be argued that they have improved our lives dramatically. People currently live longer and healthier lives than they have ever done before and infant mortality is also very low, especially in West where pharmaceuticals are most widely available. These benefits largely accrue because of the system of regulation in place that helps to make sure these drugs are developed and used responsibly. But there may also be a cost to our extensive involvement in pharmaceuticals. We may be treating problems that don’t really exist and we may be becoming too dependent on drug companies. That is possible, but that does not appear to be the modus operandi of GSK. This seems to be a socially responsible pharmaceutical company that cares about it clients and customers and wants to do whats best. The fact that it is working hard to eradicate disease and it reducing its prices in many difficult markets speaks to its sense of corporate social responsibility. Rather than constantly criticizing companies that are trying to do their best to help out we should support them and try to encourage them to do better. Works consulted Bosely, Sarah. February 13, 2009. “Drug giant GlaxoSmithKline pledges cheap medicine for worlds poor.” The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/13/glaxo-smith-kline-cheap-medicine Dilanian Ken. May, 10, 2007. "Senators Who Weakened Drug Bill Got Millions From Industry," USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-10-senators-drug-bill_N.htm Finkelstein S, Temin P. 2008. Reasonable Rx: Solving the drug price crisis. FT Press, 24-26 Law, Jacky. 2006. Big Pharma. New York: Basic Books. Vallance P, Smart TG (January 2006). "The future of pharmacology". British journal of pharmacology 147 Suppl 1: S304–7 GSK. “The Global Alliance to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis.” http://www.gsk.com/filariasis/ Read More