Merck Case Study- an Expensive Care for a Poor Market

...

Virtue Ethics emphasizes that because individuals are born to be social animals, they have a natural inclination to develop moral virtues that control their rational desires. From this perspective, as a leader of a major international corporation, Dr. Vagelos would see himself as an individual who is expected to have cultivated good social habits that leads him to be a good member of the global community. As a good member of the global community, Dr. Vagelos would exercise moral virtue and control the desire of himself and his fellow Merck executives from making a harmful decision to put profits before helping people. Under consequentialism, I see egoism and utilitarianism as concepts that a single individual makes in an isolated situation that only has personal consequences for themselves, not a corporation. Therefore, I do not feel these moral theories apply to this situation.

What is the most ethical decision Dr. Vagelos could make and why?

Dr. Vagelos has to make the ethical situation to invest in the research for an antiparasitic drug. First, Merck’s corporate philosophy is to put people first and profits second. Additionally, Merck researchers are encouraged to think of their work as a quest to alleviate human disease and suffering world-wide. Therefore, in light of their corporate philosophy and a legacy of creating innovative human and animal antibiotic and prescription drugs for the world community, Dr. Vogoles’ decision to pursue the antiparasitic drug would be approved by the chairman of Merck, the World Health Organization (WHO), the employees of Merck, the world community, and foundations and philanthropists looking for an opportunity to invest in a worthy humanitarian cause. Additionally, because most of the research cost has already occurred as a result of the Japanese soil sampling, moving forward with these endeavor is estimated not to be as costly as it would be in starting a completely new study.

I also think that the risks associated with the improper use of the drug turning up in meat eaten by humans, and the drug being diverted to the black markets could be controlled through sound management distribution practices and training of health and local leaders. Finally, the science and world community would look at Merck with admiration as they moved forward to address the River Blindness disease. In the event that things did not work as planned, Merck’s reputation as an ethical international drug manufacturer would not be tainted. With the understanding that Merck did not stand to make a significant profit for an antiparasitic River Blindness drug, I think the world community would now that Merck was putting people before financial returns. In my opinion, this would enhance Merck’s reputation as a good corporate citizen of the world community. Morale within Merck would also be at a high level because its researchers and other employees would be proud to say they worked for an outstanding company like Merck.