Humanities
PHI445 Ashford University Business Ethics on Merck Case Study Analysis

PHI445

ashford university

Question Description

A revision of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment. Your revision should represent a substantial edit of your work that fully incorporates feedback from your professor and goes well beyond correcting any grammatical or APA errors.

The strongest possible objection to your thesis. After the final paragraph of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment, start a new paragraph that introduces the strongest possible objection to your thesis. The considerations for this are detailed in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Make sure to employ the appropriate language to introduce the objection, such as “some may object to my thesis as follows” or “according to [so and so] the thesis presented here fails to account for X” [whatever he or she finds problematic]. You can find other language to do this, of course, but the key point here is to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection.

It is also important to remember that you do research to discover good objections and not merely objections that are weak and thus easily rebutted. Look for peer-reviewed journal articles in the Ashford University Library, full-text articles in Google Scholar, or articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Present the opposing position fairly and in detail. This may take more than one paragraph.

A rebuttal. This is a refutation of the objection that you have just presented. Start this in a new paragraph following the objection paragraph(s). Once again, follow the indications of Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). You may point out an error in the objection. Or you may show that, while it is an important objection, it does not apply squarely to your argument, or does not account for facts that make it irrelevant. Above all, make sure to maintain philosophical decorum in your rebuttal. Toward this end, you should apply the principles of charity and of accuracy, first introduced in the Week One course material. See “Confronting Disagreement” in Section 9.4 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015).

Closing remarks. End your argumentative essay with a paragraph of closing remarks. Provide some reflections of what you have attempted to achieve by means of your essay. You could, for example, explain how your essay sheds light on the broader controversy that it addresses. Or you could point out how your essay addresses a frequently ignored point or the unpopular side in the controversy. You could also reflect on the related matters in the broader controversy that would be useful to examine by others. Do not merely summarize what you have done in the body of your essay, and do not add new information here that would support or contradict your essay since the body of your essay should have addressed all the relevant points. See “Closing Your Essay” in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015).

Your assignment should be between 1500 to 1700 words in length, excluding the cover and references pages.

  • Your examination should be both thorough and succinct. This is a combination that demands time and thought, so give yourself sufficient time to draft and revise.
  • Your assignment should include citations, as well as a list of references. Both must be in APA form.
  • Your references should include at least four peer-reviewed articles in addition to those that you will be carrying over from our Week Three Case Analysis Assignment. These references should be drawn from the Ashford University Library, Google Scholar, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Your assignment should be submitted no later than the end of Monday (midnight, U.S. Mountain time).
  • Unformatted Attachment Preview

    Running head: CASE STUDY: MERCK Merck’s Case Study Martin R. Martinez Jr. PHI 445 – Personal & Organizational Ethics Instructor: Todd Hughes September 1, 2017 1 MERCK’S CASE STUDY 2 The Merck’s Case Study Pharmaceutical companies are a billion-dollar industry which Merck & Co. Inc. happens to be the 5th largest pharmaceutical company in the world having a net worth of $39.8 billion and headquartered in New Jersey (Ellis, 2017). Operating in a mixed economy, Merck & Co. Inc. performs under capitalism, which the means of production are privately owned while functioning under features of socialism of governmental regulation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Each new drug produced by Merck or any other pharmaceutical company is strictly scrutinized in the Center for Drug Evaluation Research (CDER) under the umbrella of the FDA for safety and effectiveness, quality and quantity, research and development incentive along with other concerned stipulations. After Merck attempted to market a new drug and failed, the management team decided to use the company’s assets to manufacture and distribute a drug called Mectizan for a charitable purpose, though the company was known for being a profit organization. The primary objective of this paper is to show whether the business decision made by management is ethical. Research scientists, William Campbell and Mohammed Aziz from Merck discovered a drug, Mectizan, which alleviates the symptoms of onchocerciasis which is more commonly known as river blindness. The symptoms of river blindness are intense itching, persistent rashes, skin discoloration which then leads to blindness (Rea, Zhang & Baras, 2010, p. 294). The drug Mectizan is a human formulation of Ivermectin which was originally meant for animals. Onchocerciasis has become an endemic problem in 30 countries of Africa, and Latin America, which is caused by a parasite carried on by a black fly that breeds in swiftly flowing rivers and stream (River Blindness Elimination Program, n.d.). After some rigorous drug testing through clinical trials to assure Mectizan’s safety, Merck tried to market the drug to the World Health MERCK’S CASE STUDY 3 Organization (WHO) and several U.S health agencies. Aside from marketing Mectizan, Merck requested the US government to obtain funding for the distribution to impoverished countries. Merck’s attempts to sell and gain financing were unsuccessful. These failed attempts led to the forming of Mectizan’s Donation Program (MDP) which is now the longest-running disease specific-drug donation of its kind which more than 2 billion cumulative treatments have been given and reaching more than 146,000 communities. Through MDP, it has eradicated river blindness in 4 out of 6 countries in Latin America and regions in five African countries (Mectizan, 2017). The management team led by P. Roy Vagelos decided to use the company’s resources for a charitable purpose with the intention of following the company’s core values. Merck & Co. Inc.’s core values of “preserving and improving human life” and “being committed to the highest standards of ethics and integrity” (Merck’s Mission Statement, 2005) are aligned with the founder of the company, George W. Merck’s value which is “medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow and if we remember that, they have never failed to appear” (Rea et al., 2010, p. 303). The management team’s decision is believed to be more on the principle of Utilitarianism rather than Deontology. Kant’s ethical theory of deontology is said to be non-consequential in that actions are not right or wrong because of its outcome but deemed right or wrong because it is grounded on rules (Fieser, 2015). Deontology puts the highest value on the motives of action which is to make decisions based on the right moral reasons based on obligation set by Merck’s policy and regulation. Because Merck is a profit organization and its primary duty is to its shareholders, the action decided by the management of donating Mectizan would be immoral because the resources given to charity could be converted to dividends of the stockholders. The possibility of shareholders willing to sacrifice its earnings for the cause of charity is unlikely and MERCK’S CASE STUDY 4 would, therefore, be deemed unethical. The rigidity and the strictness of deontology are the weakness of this principle which focuses only on the action based on the set of rules disregarding the moral consequence. Additionally, the complexity of life situations at hand is never taken into consideration and that the deontological moral system does not provide a precise method to resolve conflicts between moral duties. On the contrary, the actions of Merck’s management to distribute the drug Mectizan for free to third world countries is ethical which reflects the principle of Utilitarianism maximizing the happiness of the majority. Donating the medication would create a more balanced use of resources because the company’s excessive amount of capital and the medical knowledge, which these third world countries do not have access. Utilitarians would declare that this action allows society at an advantage causing the greatest good for humanity. Likewise, donating the drug to heal the sick and those suffering from the disease would bring about extreme happiness and joy for these ill-people alleviating much distress to those suffering. Those treated for the disease along with their families as well as their country would be in a more favorable position than they would if the drug had not been provided because it would enable those to become more productive in society. The decision made by the management reflects the second component of utilitarianism which states that the action is right when the consequence produces the greatest amount of happiness and pleasure and wrong if it causes displeasure and pain (Fieser, 2015). Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis of utilitarianism is viewed when the management’s decision is morally right because the consequence of their action was more favorable exercising the basic sensitivity leading to the greatest good for humanity. Scarce resources such as people are considered limited and valuable and protecting them for the improvement of civilization MERCK’S CASE STUDY 5 would be the ideal decision, as Mill would also agree that human life should be valued at all cost. These are the reasons utilitarianism is better suited than deontology. MERCK’S CASE STUDY 6 Reference Ellis, M. (2017, June 14). Who are the top pharmaceutical companies in the world? (2017). ProClinical Life Sciences Recruitment Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.proclinical.com/who-are-the-top-pharmaceutical-companies-in-the-world2017 Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ Merck’s Mission Statement. (2005, June 23). Man on a Mission. Retrieved from http://manonamission.blogspot.com/2005/06/mercks-mrk-mission-statement.html Mectizan. (2017). Merck – Inventing for life. Retrieved from http://www.merck.com/about/featured-stories/mectizan.html Rea, P., Zhang, V., & Baras, Y. (2010, July-August). Ivermectin and river blindness. American Scientist, 98, 294-303. Retrieved from http://izt.ciens.ucv.ve/ecologia/Archivos/ECO_POB%202010/ECOPO6_2010/Rea%20et %20al%202010.p River Blindness Program. (n.d.). The Carter Center. Retrieved from https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/factsheets/river-blindness-facts.pdf ...
    Purchase answer to see full attachment

    Final Answer

    Here you go. In case of any further inputs, please let me know.All the best!I appreciate working with you!

    Running head: MERCK CASE STUDY

    Merck's Case Study
    Martin R. Martinez Jr.
    PHI 445 – Personal & Organizational Ethics
    Instructor: Todd Hughes
    September 4, 2017

    1

    MERCK CASE STUDY

    2
    The Merck's Case Study

    Pharmaceutical companies are a billion-dollar industry which Merck & Co. Inc. happens
    to be the 5th largest pharmaceutical company in the world having a net worth of $39.8 billion
    and headquartered in New Jersey (Ellis, 2017). Operating in a mixed economy, Merck & Co.
    Inc. performs under capitalism, which the means of production are privately owned while
    functioning under features of socialism of governmental regulation of the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA). Each new drug produced by Merck or any other pharmaceutical
    company is strictly scrutinized in the Center for Drug Evaluation Research (CDER) under the
    umbrella of the FDA for safety and effectiveness, quality and quantity, research and
    development incentive along with other concerned stipulations. After Merck attempted to
    market a new drug and failed, the management team decided to use the company's assets to
    manufacture and distribute a drug called Mectizan for a charitable purpose, though the company
    was known for being a profit organization. The primary objective of this paper is to show
    whether the business decision made by management is ethical.
    Research scientists, William Campbell and Mohammed Aziz from Merck discovered a
    drug, Mectizan, which alleviates the symptoms of onchocerciasis which is more commonly
    known as river blindness. The symptoms of river blindness are intense itching, persistent rashes,
    skin discolouration which then leads to blindness (Rea, Zhang & Baras, 2010, p. 294). The drug
    Mectizan is a human formulation of Ivermectin which was originally meant for animals.
    Onchocerciasis has become an endemic problem in 30 countries of Africa, and Latin America,
    which is caused by a parasite carried on by a black fly that breeds in swiftly flowing rivers and
    stream (River Blindness Elimination Program, n.d.).

    After some rigorous drug testing through

    clinical ...

    CASIMIR (24347)
    UC Berkeley

    Anonymous
    The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

    Anonymous
    Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

    Anonymous
    Just what I needed… fantastic!

    Studypool
    4.7
    Trustpilot
    4.5
    Sitejabber
    4.4

    Brown University





    1271 Tutors

    California Institute of Technology




    2131 Tutors

    Carnegie Mellon University




    982 Tutors

    Columbia University





    1256 Tutors

    Dartmouth University





    2113 Tutors

    Emory University





    2279 Tutors

    Harvard University





    599 Tutors

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology



    2319 Tutors

    New York University





    1645 Tutors

    Notre Dam University





    1911 Tutors

    Oklahoma University





    2122 Tutors

    Pennsylvania State University





    932 Tutors

    Princeton University





    1211 Tutors

    Stanford University





    983 Tutors

    University of California





    1282 Tutors

    Oxford University





    123 Tutors

    Yale University





    2325 Tutors