Merck Case Study- an Expensive Care for a Poor Market

Merck Case Study- An Expensive Care for a Poor Market

What are the pertinent facts of the case?

In 1978, the Merck Corporation was one of the largest producers of human and animal antibiotic and prescription drugs in the world. The corporate philosophy of Merck was, We try never to forget that medicine is for the people, it is not for the profits.” (p.26). However, in 1978, Dr. Vagelos, the head of Merck’s research labs, was faced with an ethical dilemma. In conducting parasitic research on soil for Japan, one of Merck’s interdisciplinary research teams made a surprising antiparasitic discovery that had the ability to solve problems with parasites in various types of animals. One year after this discovery, along with a senior researcher in parasitology, this interdisciplinary research teams informed Dr. Vagelos that they had developed a hypothesis that their ground-breaking research could be effective in treating River Blindness.

River Blindness is a catastrophic disease that threaten more than 85 million people who lived in tiny settlements in over 35 developing countries in Africa, parts of the Middle East, and Latin America. In 1978, the World Health Organization estimated that River Blindness infected over 18 million people, lead to the blindness of 340,000 people, with a million others suffering from varying degrees of visual impairment. Additionally, because of the severity of the itching that is associated with River Blindness, some infected victims committed suicide. Although scientists first identified River Blindness in 1893, by 1970s there was still no cure for these impoverished communities.

Dr. Vagelos quickly realized that to continue research on the team’s hypothesis would cost millions with no guarantee that a new drug could be manufactured, or if a new drug would ever generate a financial return for Merck. Another complication was that if a new antiparasitic Merck drug proved to have adverse health effects on humans, would this have a negative effective on Merk’s reputation as a dominate manufacturer of veterinary drugs. Also, Dr. Vagelos had to be concerned with the possibility of the improper use of the drug turning up in meat eaten by humans; if the drug would be diverted to the black market resulting in undercutting Merck’s veterinary drug sales; and could the drug cause harm to certain animals in unknown ways? Finally, Dr. Vagelos had to consider, in light of Merck’s corporate philosophy, what would happen to the company’s morale if he turned down the opportunity to develop a drug to fight the harmful River Blindness disease.

What are the ethical issue(s) facing Merck and/or Dr. Vagelos?

The primary ethical issue facing Merck is that sometimes its executives squirm when the son of the founder of Merck states that the company should always put helping people before profits. In this particular case, the sometimes squirming executives suggests that because of the improvised nature of the people infected with the River Blindness disease, there could be a strong possibility that many of the Merck executives would vote against pursing the drug solely on the rationale that the drug could not be sold for a profit. Although the case study does not indicate that Dr. Vagelos is one of Merck’s executives who squirmed when the people first philosophy of the corporation is mentioned, nevertheless, as the top decision marker, he is faced with making the decision if the company should move forward with research on a drug that could potentially cure River Blindness.

Using the Underwood Personal Ethical Model, how do each of the elements inform Dr. Vagelos?

1.          Does it violate any moral absolutes?  

Absolutism is the view that some things are wrong for everyone, everywhere, and every time regardless of whether the person thinks they are wrong or not.  It is crystal clear from this respective that, despite the possibility of no financial return, from humanitarian reasons Dr. Vagelos must move forward and invest in the research for an antiparasitic drug that could cure the River Blindness disease. If not generating a financial return was the reason why Dr. Vagelos or any Merck executive decided against investing in the antiparasitic drug, they all would clearly violate the ethical rule of putting the well-being of people before money. However, if the interdisciplinary team’s hypothesis would have clearly indicated that producing an antiparasitic drug would harm other animals, or have a negative effect on meat that would be eaten by humans, that the correct ethical decision would be to not move forward with the research.

2.        Is it legal?

Under the legal aspect of the Underwood model, making a decision for or against investing in an antiparasitic drug would have not legal ramifications. The case study indicated that there are no U.S. of international laws or inventive programs that legislate or encourage companies to conduct research on rare diseases. Therefore, based on the Underwood principle of law, Dr. Vagelos would free from any legal circumstances if he decided not to pursue the development of an antiparasitic drug to cure River Blindness.

3.        Do any of the moral philosophical approaches apply? 

Out of all each of the moral philosophies, Deontology and Virtue Ethics would apply to the Merck case. Deontology holds that the duty of the individual is to follow universal rules to determine right actions. With Kantian Deontology, Dr. Vagelos would see that his responsibility in this situation would be guided by universally agreed upon actions, and that it is his responsibility to support the intrinsic value of treating others in the human community with respect, and that decisions should be avoided merely as a means of achieving one’s self-interests. Also, Deontology’s social contract perspective would allow Dr. Vagelos to see people effected by the River Blindness disease like himself, a member of a natural just society where rational individuals gather to support the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For this perspective, Dr. Vagelos and is fellow Merck executives should be motivated to pursue the development of the antiparasitic drug to cure a dreaded disease that was significantly harming members of their just society.