Merck River Blindness Case Study

Merck had developed an antibiotic, Ivermectin that was used to treat parasites in animals. Dr. William C. Campbell, a Merck senior researcher, found evidence that the same drug might be effective against the parasitic worm that causes river blindness. After much consideration, Merck decided to research Ivermectin’s effectiveness in preventing river blindness. That research, including human clinical trials, showed that the drug indeed was effective with no side effects. After searching for an organization that would pay for the distribution of the human version of the drug, called Mectizan, without success, Merck decided to give the drug itself, at no cost, to everyone who needed it and set up its own committee to oversee distribution. In the little more than a decade since that announcement, river blindness has been virtually eliminated as

a threat in several areas.
Merck has an ethical obligation to develop the drug, and has also decided to act on the Corporate Social Responsibilities duty towards the wider community. Ethical responsibilities go beyond legal responsibilities to encompass the more general responsibility to avoid harm and do what’s right, again relying on ethical decision-making processes to make these decisions. There are many good examples of companies going beyond legal requirements to fulfill what they perceive to be their ethical responsibilities. Philanthropic responsibilities center on the corporation’s participation in activities that promote human welfare or goodwill generally through donations of time and money or products and services.

Because many people consider philanthropy to be a completely voluntary or discretionary aspect of corporate social responsibility, failure to be philanthropic is generally not considered as unethical; some may question whether it is a corporate ‘‘responsibility’’ at all. (Brian K. 2005) The caring approach seems much more realistic to use in terms of how people in business actually make decisions, as well as how they should make decisions. Managerial experience and observation of managers leads to conclude that morally and economically effective managers consider possible effects on other individuals, not amorphous groups, unless those groups are very homogeneous in nature. These managers think about themselves as well as others. When faced with conflicts they try to find the actions that fit the particular situation the best, intuitively understanding that each situation is different and deserves full consideration itself, and not some

routinized application of principles. Thus, the caring approach will challenge pushes people to put themselves in the manager’s place, to consider all that the manager considers, to decide based on their own understanding of caring what should be done, and to learn from the differences between their decision and the actual manager’s decision about what it means to care in a business context, to think about being effective in terms of helping their employees find meaning and purpose, and in helping people who really need help and thus fulfilling their own needs. Instead of seeing a conflict of principles, they see a conflict of desires and needs. Instead of putting groups of people in boxes, they will think about the relationships involved in the case and the people who, although perhaps silent, are forced into their consciousness through the “I must” feeling response. These differences may or may not lead to different conclusions regarding the proper action in a case. Through the caring approach individuals will examine the situation as it is, in all its complexity, which will benefit them much more than the naturally simplifying method of teaching principles. In fact, the best way to understand the complexity of a business decision in a moral context using a principles approach is to overlay parts of the caring approach; the breaking down of groups, the focus on what stakeholders need, the consideration of the individual manager’s place.