Modern businesses operate in an environment where they have to make some critical decisions related to their operations. Some of these decisions have far reaching ethical implications. An example is the case of Merck Pharmaceuticals. The case study details how the organization dealt with an issue related to a new drug that it had developed. The primary issue in the case is whether the decision to donate drugs that cure river blindness was ethical (Hernando, Colwell, & Wright, 2016). Merck is a pharmaceutical company with specific obligations to its owners and shareholders. In particular, the company and its executives are expected to make decisions that will maximize returns to the shareholders and give it a competitive edge in the market. The members of the marketing departments are expected to undertake activities and processes that will give the company an upper hand in the market. Those in the research and development departments, on the other hand, should strive to come with innovative products that can be sold to the customers (Hernando, Colwell, & Wright, 2016). In the case, it is evident that the research and development team managed to come up with the drug invermectin which is capable of curing river blindness. The medicine was developed at a time when many people around the world were suffering from the adverse effects of river blindness. In the developing world, majority of these patients require treatment but are not able to afford the drugs (WHO, 2006). It is against this background the Merck decides to donate the drugs to those who could not afford them. Unfortunately, the move was perceived to be against the company laws and expectations of the owners and shareholders.
In this paper, I want to defend the actions of Merck because the executives did the right thing by helping people instead of selling the new drug for profits. It is undeniable that the company invested heavily in developing the new drugs. In addition, the owners and the shareholders expected to get the right returns on their investments through the sale of the new drug. This is something that did not materialize because of the decision by the executives to donate the drugs to the poor who needed them. At that time, there were increasing concerns about the prevalence of river blindness among the poor. These people were unable to get the treatment needed to live a normal life. In addition, they could not pay for the drugs even through companies such as Merck had managed to invent new medicine (Hernando, Colwell, & Wright, 2016). The executives may be perceived as people who decided to go against the rules of the company by donating the drugs instead of selling them to customers. When one takes the utilitarianism theory, however, it is evident that the executives made the right and ethical decision. Utilitarianism can be described as a normative approach to ethics that holds that actions are ethical when they maximize happiness and wellbeing for the greatest number of people ( King, 2008 ). In other words, people should strive to make decisions that will produce advantage, pleasure, good, happiness, and benefit for the greatest number of people. At the same time, it is imperative to avoid taking actions that will lead to negative outcomes such as pain, unhappiness, evil, and mischief. If this concept is taken into consideration, it becomes apparent that the executives of the company decided to do a noble and ethical thing by donating the medicine.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first reason why I want to defend the decision of the company is the fact that they decided to bring positive outcomes for many people who were suffering from river blindness. River blindness is a serious medical condition. In addition, it prevents people from living a normal life. In addition, those who suffer from the disease may struggle to achieve their full potential. Under the utilitarianism model, people should strive to maximize benefits to those they interact with in life. In the present case, the business executives at Merck needed to make decisions that will maximize benefits to stakeholders. The primary group of stakeholders here are the poor people with river blindness, business owners and the shareholders. The number of poor people with river blindness has increased significantly. In addition, these individuals are struggling to live a normal life and achieve their potential. Therefore, there was a need for the managers to donate the profits to them. The company did not make profits from the new drugs after they decided to donate the medicine. While such losses may not be attractive to the owners and shareholders, I believe that the donation had a positive effect to a large number of poor people. Therefore, the executives should not be treated unfairly since their actions appear to be ethical from a utilitarianism perspective.
The second reason why I support the actions of the company executives is that they were able to portray the organization in a positive light. As noted earlier, River Blindness is a major complication that is adversely affected the everyday life and wellbeing of people. These people require assistance from different agencies to be able to recover. In addition, they require professional assistance to recover from the conditions. Over the years, companies have been working to develop medicines that can be used to deal with a wide range of conditions such as river blindness. Companies like Merck have managed to successfully develop new medicine for the diseases. However, no other company has made a decision that is similar to the one made by Merck executives (Hernando, Colwell, & Wright, 2016). Instead, the company have been working on maximizing their profits through the sale of the new products. It is not wrong for the companies to sell the products that they have developed at a profit. However, the organizations also have a role in protecting and helping other people such as the individuals who cannot afford the drugs. In addition, they should take actions that will bring positive results for all major stakeholders, including members of the community living in poor nations and neighborhoods. By donating the drugs to the poor, the executives were able to give the company positive publicity (Hernando et al., 2016). The positive image that the company will get through the donations will lead to increased profits. Increased profits means that the company will be better placed to meet the needs of the stakeholder and fund its future projects. These are positive results that illustrate that the action of the executives were ethical from the utilitarianism point of view.
The companies operating in the pharmaceutical sector face significant competition in the market. In addition, the companies strive to develop new products that will give them a competitive edge in the market. Therefore, the executives should strive to make decisions that will allow them achieve the desired results in the market. The current case study can be analyzed based on different ethical theories. The utilitarianism and deontological theories provide basis for examining the decisions made by the executives. In the case of utilitarianism , the decision maximizing happiness and benefits from the greatest number of people. In the case of deontology, the morality of an action will depend on the nature of the act. In this case, harm is considered to be unacceptable and unethical irrespective of the consequences that it may have. When the deontological model is applied to the current case, it may be concluded that the executives made unethical decisions. The argument is based on the fact that the executives caused losses for the owners and shareholders. The deontological model does not do justice to the present case since it overlooks the positive results that it may have on other stakeholders and organization. Therefore, it is important to analyze the case study from a utilitarianism perspective.
References
Hernando, Y., Colwell, K., & Wright, B. (2016). Doing well while fighting river blindness: the alignment of a corporate drug donation programme with responsibilities to shareholders. Tropical Medicine and International Health, 21 (10), 1304–1310.
King, I. (2008). How to make good decisions and be right all the time . Continuum.
WHO. (2006, July 28). Report from the fifteenth InterAmerican conference on onchocerciasis, Caracas, Venezuela . WHO | World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/who-wer8130
