Merck and River Blindness

Onchocerciasis, k presentlyn as river blindness, is caused by leechlike worms that live in the sm all told(a) ghastly flies that breed in and close to fast-moving rivers in modernizeing countries in the middle East, Africa, and Latin America. The illness, if untreated causes extreme pique and eventually, blindness. In 1978, the World Health plaque estimated that over 300,000 mickle were blind because of the disease and a nonher 18 million were septic. At the quantify, there was no safe bring around (Trevino, & Nelson, 2011).In 1978, Merck, take time off test invermectin (a bloodsucker cleaning medicate for animals), set that invermectin killed a parasite similar to the one that caused river blindness. The business for Merck was that river blindness generally only affects populate in genuinely poor beas and there was very little chance to recoup their pecuniary coronation by selling the medicate.The honest dilemma represented by this piazza is accente d on what course of doing Merck should take. Does Merck beautify precious resources (both sequence and money) into testing and developing a drug that ordain non increase their mesh? Or should Merck invest the resources knowing that their work, while non profitable, has the potency to save millions of lives and end the crucifixion of tens of millions more than?On the Merck website, I found this listed first among their Values Our shop is preserving and meliorate human life. We also work to purify animal health. All of our actions must(prenominal) be measured by our achiever in achieving these goals. We value, above all, our ability to serve everyone who buns r to each one from the appropriate use of our products and services, thereby providing lasting consumer satisfaction (Our values, 2008). Corporate success (profit) vs. Corporate philosophy, while it is easy to rag about ethics and charity, the river blindness scenario was a great test of Mercks collective cha racter.Section 2 StakeholdersAfter submiting the case in our textbook and going out to read about this river blindness issue, I digest changed my opinion on who the plump forholders be in this situation (comp bed to what I wrote in the weekly watchwords). The stakeholders, in my opinion atomic number 181)Merck shargonholders and investors 2)Merck employees 3)Merck counseling 4) mint affected by (or potentially be by) river blindness This list is non a ranking of stakeholder importance as that is rattling a subjective measure ground on your view of the situation.Merck sh atomic number 18holders and investors may or may non sh atomic number 18 the troupes stack first vision. For this group, the electric shock must be looked at in light of how the development of a drug (that will most likely be devoted away for free) affects the return on their enthronisation. We cook to remember that not all investors atomic number 18 rich jillionaires like warren Buffet, some are average, working severalise folks who rely on their investment income to sustain them survive. People invest in Merck because they expect a certain commonsensible return on their investments and Merck has a responsibleness to act in the best refer of their shareholders. If Merck decides to spend time and money on a philanthropic endeavor, how does the investment of time and manpower affect their otherwise drug trials?Merck employees are stakeholders because their livelihood depends on Merck take in enough profits to overlay paid them. A few years past I would not maintain viewed employees in this light still the more I learn about the company/employee dynamic, I begin to understand that employees, whether or not they shoot some financial come to in the company (other than salary), flummox a vested interest in the success of the company. same(p) the shareholders, employees make a choice to invest in a company. In their case, it is an investment of time and their inv estment is tied to original growth. Merck must make determinations that do not recklessly jeopardize the future of their employees.Merck focuss stake in this is similar to that of the employees. The difference is that not only are they invested headmasterly the management team has been given stewardship over the Merck brand and embodied identity. They must make the closes that set the companys path so that the brand is financially successful while be honest to the incorporate vision that was discussed earlier.Last, but sure as shooting not least, we shoot to the plenty who are affected by the river blindness disease. These nation bemuse voice in what Merck favors to do but at the same time they are the reason that Merck is in business in the first place. As of 2006, estimates are that 37 million are infected with, and up to 100 million people are at risk of contracting, river blindness (Hearney, 2007). For a company like Merck that claims to be more concerned with peopl e than profits, these people are definitely stakeholders in Mercks finale to move forward with invermectin trials.Section 3 Analysis Based on honorable TheoriesCultural relativism means that any finis is make up (or wrong) depending on whose face you are pickings at the moment. Because the United States doesnt have a single, ethical baseline that guides our actions, each(prenominal) individual view holds equal plundert over and there is no absolute properly or wrong. For this case, Merck could decide to cut the question on invermectin, order its scientists to not discuss the issue, and sit back while millions of people suffer through a horrible existence without a sulfur thought. People who oppose Mercks decision would have no standing to assure any intimacy about the decision because it is the office decision for the business culture in which Merck operates.For the injury masses, this decision could be viewed as something equivalent to the Nazi decision to kill millio ns of Jews but based on the cultural relativistic school of thought, their view would not be any more important or morally superior than Mercks. disunite of the problem with this theory is that we are force to intromit barbaric actions as acceptable (burning people at the stake, cannibalism, beheading, honor killings,stoning, etc.) because it is accepted by another culture. I find it dry that there would have been a huge public outcry (from the very people who support cultural relativism) if Merck had dogged to dispel testing and not develop the drug. In general, these liberal and enlightened folks are only tolerant of the cultures and people with whom they agree.The teleological greet to this dilemma would require an examen of the issue and a breakdown of all the possible consequences of the various options presented.StakeholderDevelop HarmsDevelop BenefitsDont develop HarmsDont develop Benefits Merck ShareholdersCosts of development causes delays in other projects. Los t revenues cause line of business price to drop. People on mend incomes lose dividend money and are forced to live in poverty.Positive public reply to charitable act. More investments, higher business line prices.NoneFocus resources on other drug lines could go forth in higher profits, increasing stock prices. Investors make more money and their shopworn of living increases.Merck EmployeesCompany loses money, loss of profits forces layoffs.Chance to supply to a worthwhile cause. Work on invermectin could lead to breakthroughs in other drugs.Loss of paying attention for Merck leadership. Perception that values are overshadowed by financial considerations.Focus on more moneymaking(a) products, increasing profits and salaries/ gains. Merck ManagementLoss of time/resources forces delays in other projects/products. Delays cause stock to drop.Loss of job.Public effrontery spikes, stock price goes up. Influx of bullion allows us to expand other projects.Public authorisation crash es. Backlash forces investors to pull out. Jobs lost repayable to loss of capital. Focus on more lucrative products, increasing profits and salaries/benefits. People affected by river blindnessPossible fatal side effects (similar to other drugs).Cure for disease increases shopworn of living.Continued suffering from disease.None.Using the chart above, we would look at how the benefits and termss balance out to maximize the benefit for society. Obviously, using this method, we can see that the benefits of inveterate the seek and development of this drug has the potential to save millions of lives while the potential harmsare restricted to the loss of some profits and the possible delay of some other drugs. This approach isnt about function or wrong as coherent as the maximum societal benefit is reached, the actions taken to get to that point are not part of the equation.The deontological approach removes the harm/benefit comparison and focuses on the concern and obligation of Merck to do the right thing once they discovered that there was a possible cure for this disease. Mercks corporate values statements show that this is the approach they choose to take in their daily operations. meshwork are not the prime motivator, helping people is what they are all about. In this case, Merck decided to continue the research and help the people no matter of the consequences involved. accord to the Merck website, since 1987, Merck has donated more than 2.5 billion tablets of MECTIZAN (ivermectin) in more than 30 countries worldwide. According to some deontological approaches, certain moral principles are binding, regardless of the consequences. Mercks stance now matches up with what George W. Merck said in 1950, We estimate neer to forget that medicine is for people. It is not for profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered that, the larger they have been.As someone who follows the deontological approach myself, I can appreciate how difficult it can be to remain committed to this principle. Merck is a business and as such it doesnt exist to give money away. I have argued that the people who invest in Merck have a huge stake in what the company does but part of the investment process is doing due coating and research to make sure you are comfortable with how a company operates.Merck devotes an built-in section of their website to Corporate Responsibility and they have detailed information on the initiatives they support. Part of the culture at Merck is one of handsome back to the community and helping others so for Merck, the decision to develop invermectin was an easy one. Having a strong moral and ethical footing makes it easy to make the right decision when faced with easy decisions that fall into the ethical gray area.The virtue ethics approach would looks at the motivations and engrossedions ofthe decision maker as opposed to the results of his or h er actions. In this case, if Merck had decided not to pursue the research and the chief executive officer stood up and explained that the reason was because they had an obligation to their shareholders to focus on developing products that would be profitable, he would have been right due to the professional expectations of his office. CEOs are hypothetical to make companies profitable, period.As long as Merck was operational legally, the moral questions about the results of the decision are not relevant to the virtue ethics approach. If the board announced that Merck, based on their stated corporate values, was going to continue to expend time and resources on a cure for river blindness even though it wasnt a profitable project, their motivation for action would be guided by Mercks established values and the scent out of corporate responsibility that is important to them. neither position would be wrong regardless of the outcomes because both courses of action were guided by the best intentions of their leadership.Section 4 Conclusion and RecommendationsIn this case, I feel that Merck made the proper decision based on their core corporate values and the deontological approach to ethical decision-making. piece I might have at rest(p) a different direction if I was making decisions for Merck, it is obvious from all my research that this curriculum is helping millions of people each year. I was wrong about the river blindness issue in my original discussion post, this isnt just about philanthropy or looking good for the public, this program (and the many other like it) wager by Merck is all about being true to their core values.Even when they could not get financial backing for this project, they did what they felt was right regardless of the cost. The success of the river blindness running led Merck to begin providing ivermectin to treat lymphatic filariasis (Elephantitis) in Africa (Voelker, 1998). I am not so nave as to opine that Merck isnt reaping some benefits from these programs but some(prenominal) small reward they are acquiring is well deserved when measured against the lives they have touched.There are no recommendations I could make for Merck in the way they handle these situations. Mercks actions are consistent with their stated policiesand they have managed to thrive while ensuring that the original intent of their founders (people before profits) is not lost in the rush to be commercially successful.