Merck and River Blindness Essay Example

resulting in a lower return for investors. However, regardless of the donation or sale of products, the company still bears moral and legal responsibility for any potential harm caused by their drugs in the future.

Regardless of whether the drug is intended for treating river blindness or acne, the company should conduct comprehensive testing to uncover and resolve any potential issues before making it available. Once they determine it is ready for release, they must inform consumers about any known or suspected side effects prior to their usage of the drug. If, after several years, patients experience unforeseeable issues and harm, the company should only be held accountable to the extent that they may have caused harm through negligence or lack of disclosure.

The contrast in accountability between an acne drug and a life-saving drug lies in consumer choice. The individuals who opt for the acne medication likely have higher disposable income and are not addressing a decision that significantly impacts their overall quality of life. Conversely, those taking the river blindness medication live in poverty and rely on it to prevent a debilitating illness that hampers their ability to thrive or even survive in certain regions.

The significant moral differences indicate that Merck would be responsible for a higher degree of liability in the case of the river blindness drug. This is because consumers do not have a genuine choice and lack resources for treating potential side effects. Therefore, it becomes the manufacturer's responsibility to either eliminate the side effects from the drug or provide treatment for patients.

Mr. Campbell had a responsibility to pursue his belief in the human

application of the drug once he realized its potential. This duty stemmed from his role as a member of the community. If his company had not supported him in developing Mectizan, he would have needed to show courage by challenging them internally and, if necessary, externally.

If his company did not respond to his information, even after he went to the highest level within the company or investor community, he would have felt obligated to share his information with another company or with the public so that others could work on it. Since the company is publicly announcing the donation of these drugs, it is logical to assume that consumers of their other drugs should recognize that there might be a slight increase in costs for those drugs, in order to cover the expenses of these donations.

Merck is likely implementing various strategies to minimize production overhead costs. However, ultimately, they are only contributing the compounds used for the drugs, the simplest and most cost-efficient packaging, and a readiness to bear potential future liability in the event of unforeseen side effects from their medication.

It is illogical to assume that they will operate at a total loss for this donation. Personally, I would feel like I am contributing to the eradication of river blindness by using Merck drugs if I had to contribute financially towards or pay for a portion of the drug. If I were Merck, I would even promote my other products with this information to allow consumers to also experience the positive impact that comes from using Merck drugs.

I believe that there is no ethical

issue in taking advantage of this information. If it leads to increased sales, it ultimately allows for more donations to be made. In this case, publicity would be advantageous for all parties involved. The CEO had to consider all stakeholders when deciding concerning the donation of Mectizan.

The objective is to minimize the negative effects and maximize the positive outcomes. The CEO would prioritize the well-being of the people in the sub-Saharan region who require the drug, just like any other stakeholder. Initially, the company itself needs to be taken into account to determine if it can manufacture and provide the drug without operating at a loss. The CEO must consider the expenses related to distributing the drug widely over a period of 15 years or more, as well as estimating the cost when the drug enters a phase of lower production at a higher cost in the future.

Once the drug's evaluation is complete, the community's need for it would take precedence over additional profits for the Investors. In the unlikely scenario that the company cannot manufacture and supply the drugs without risking their future, they would have the responsibility to either form an alliance with others or offer the drug to another company or provider. Once the drug is accessible, it cannot be withdrawn from consumers. Even after eradicating the disease, the drug must continue to be affordable for individual use in the future. Just like Mr.

Once Campbell discovered the potential for this treatment, they had a moral responsibility to either produce the medication or share the knowledge for others to pursue the cure. However, they were

not morally obligated to engage in any activity that could harm or jeopardize the future of the company. Therefore, they had the right to choose not to manufacture the drug. However, at that point, it was not their right to keep the information about the potential treatment private.

Not producing the medication and concealing the information would have been morally reprehensible. Whether an action is performed or omitted, it can result in either harm or benefit for individuals or society as a whole. The moral significance lies in the intention behind the actions of an individual or corporation. If I had to choose between providing $20 to someone in genuine need or using that money for a night at the cinema, choosing to spend it on entertainment instead of assisting the other person would be considered immoral.

However, if my need were equal to or greater than the other person's, I would not have a moral obligation to give them the $20 and suffer in their place. The question boils down to being aware of the situation and logically determining the conflicting needs. In this scenario, Merck was driven by their belief that the community's needs surpassed the needs of the minority and they chose to act accordingly. This belief motivated them to go beyond their usual setting and take on the effort, expenses, and risks involved in enhancing human lives in this world.