Unit 1 Homework
Brian Thomason
Unit 1 Homework
MAN 5066-1
Managerial Ethics
Professor Terrell
Merck Corporation and the continued sale of Vioxx
1, What would be your view of what Merck has done: economically, legally, and ethically? Assume that all this has occurred before September 2004, when the senior executives at Merck removed Vioxx from the market, and while the risks of Vioxx were still not public knowledge. Would you approve, or disapprove, of the continued sale of the drug by your firm? I think with the aspect of economics the company has done the right thing as far as design great drugs in the past, and often even took losses with the making and delivery of those drugs. When it comes to Vioxx, I tend to believe that they should have informed the public and the doctors prescribing and taking this drug with all their findings and notions before the hard evidence came about. I do believe that not telling the whole truth about their findings to the doctors and the pubic goes against my belief in ethics. If I had anything to do with the distribution of the drug before the 2004 removal from market, I would have really studied the reports and warnings, and if I saw what was being reported and said from the scientist, then I would have stopped the sale of it then, and not wait until 2004. I would then have made a public address and told the public and doctors why we are stopping the sale and production of this drug. This would have again put more faith into the company from the public view as well. This is a hard question because if we look at the tobacco companies, they are still selling tobacco that has been proven over and over again to be harmful to humans and animals. I am a smoker and hopefully one day will quit, but for a company to continue to produce and sell a known harmful and deadly product, this is ethically bad for them as well as our government to even allow it. Where is the ethics in all of this? I will never figure that one out.
2, If you disapprove
Unit 1 Homework
MAN 5066-1
Managerial Ethics
Professor Terrell
Merck Corporation and the continued sale of Vioxx
1, What would be your view of what Merck has done: economically, legally, and ethically? Assume that all this has occurred before September 2004, when the senior executives at Merck removed Vioxx from the market, and while the risks of Vioxx were still not public knowledge. Would you approve, or disapprove, of the continued sale of the drug by your firm? I think with the aspect of economics the company has done the right thing as far as design great drugs in the past, and often even took losses with the making and delivery of those drugs. When it comes to Vioxx, I tend to believe that they should have informed the public and the doctors prescribing and taking this drug with all their findings and notions before the hard evidence came about. I do believe that not telling the whole truth about their findings to the doctors and the pubic goes against my belief in ethics. If I had anything to do with the distribution of the drug before the 2004 removal from market, I would have really studied the reports and warnings, and if I saw what was being reported and said from the scientist, then I would have stopped the sale of it then, and not wait until 2004. I would then have made a public address and told the public and doctors why we are stopping the sale and production of this drug. This would have again put more faith into the company from the public view as well. This is a hard question because if we look at the tobacco companies, they are still selling tobacco that has been proven over and over again to be harmful to humans and animals. I am a smoker and hopefully one day will quit, but for a company to continue to produce and sell a known harmful and deadly product, this is ethically bad for them as well as our government to even allow it. Where is the ethics in all of this? I will never figure that one out.
2, If you disapprove