More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics and the pharmaceutical industry
Ethical decisions of pharmaceutical companies
Ethics and the pharmaceutical industry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The interesting fact of this matter is that companies do profit through these methods at first, but eventually stand to lose a lot more, ultimately leaving their shareholders and employees scrambling—everyone is empty-handed, right from the desperate consumers to the greedy producers (Spinello 621). Gilead raked in $10.3 billion in 2014 and doubled their net margins—which even exceeded 50% at one point—until GlaxoSmithKline came out with a more reasonably priced drug combination, one that hit Gilead’s stocks hard, resulting in a 31% loss and 20-30% lower projected EPS (Kola and Landis 712). Mylan Pharmaceuticals similarly blew up initially, but the storm surrounding their high pricing forced them to offer $300 coupons to customers, and share …show more content…
A more ethical approach would have been to set a price that reaped sufficient profits for buyers, but did so without harming anyone in need of critical drugs (Spinello 622). Overall, this goes to show that pharmaceutical companies should strike a balance between satisfying investors and customers, because trying to unethically tip the scales only seems to give way to bad news. 3. Case Studies This leads into some more severe methods that the pharmaceutical industry has resorted to, in order to earn money while harming the very people that it was established to help. A practical way of delving into this situation is to analyze some of the most prominent pharmaceutical settlements of all time, and consider the crucial role that ethics have to …show more content…
The company eventually tried to switch to Dayton’s idea of CSR—which advocates serving society and focusing less on money—by getting involved in the unprofitable Ebola market (Thomas and Schmidt), but CSR is not a band-aid solution, and could not magically negate their earlier unethical actions. Again, this is proof of how the pharmaceutical industry needs to strike an ethical balance between revenue and public health, since nothing good can come out of favoring one
In summary, Burroughs Wellcome Company found itself under relentless pressure from government and activists to decrease the price of Retrovir. The firm had to decide whether to choose between increasing profit margin or changing the price for the ethical and social well-being of potential HIV and AIDS patients.
Dr. John Abramson’s book Overdosed America debunks the myths about the excellence of American medicine. Abramson backs up this claim by closely examining research about medicine, closely examining the unpublished details submitted by drug manufacturers to the FDA, and discovering that the unpublished data does not coincide with the claims made about the safety and effectiveness of commonly used medicines. Abramsons purpose is to point out the flaws of the pharmaceutical industry in order to warn the readers about the credibility of the drugs they are buying. Given the critical yet technical language of the book, Abramson is writing to an audience that may include academic physicians as well as those who want to learn about the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.
Deontology theory defines an ethical action as one that adheres to a set of rules and duties. PharmaCARE’s actions are unethical by way of this moral compass because the firm has failed to perform in accordance with one very important duty, the duty to safeguard human dignity and basic human rights. Paying $1 a day to its workers and not providing them with even the most basic of amenities is a gross violation of the firm’s obligation to safeguard human rights, which in itself is a morally required behavior and applicable almost universally. PharmaCARE is not treating the Colberians like the treat their executives, nor are they treating the community there as they treat the communities in the
It is the profits rather than the need of the world that drives the market, as Cahill points out. She laments that while in the 1960-1970 's theologic bioethicists influenced the field of bioethics, nowadays the ethical discourse involving Christian narrative gets" thinner and thinner," shifting away toward more secular and liberal views. As theologians are welcomed to partake in the ethical debates, their voices and opinions are rarely considered in policy making. Such situation causes the current trend amongst health care institutions,medical-surgical companies, and research labs, to focus on financial gain rather than ways to deliver health care to those who needed it the most. It is the consumers with the most "buying power" that have at their disposal the latest medical treatment, equipment, technologies, and medications while millions around the world lack the most basics of needs, such as clean water, food, shelter, education as well as the basic health care. Cahill fears that medical companies seeking profits will neglect or stop altogether to produce medications that are bringing low profits. Medications that are necessary to treat prevalent in the third- world countries or if you prefer the developing countries diseases, such as Dysentery, Cholera, Malaria, Rabies, Typhoid Fever, Yellow Fever, even warms, to name a
Johnson & Johnson, a healthcare company that has dominated its industry for several decades, is currently undergoing managerial upheaval in light of recent blunders amongst its top-tier managers. It has spent years priding itself on appeasing stakeholders and being a safe provider of various pharmaceuticals, but product recalls and subsequent revenue drops have plagued the company as of late. Alex Gorsky spearheads Johnson & Johnson’s revival after previous CEO William Weldon resigned due to missteps. The cause of which stems from misinterpretation of common business ethics through poor leadership and social responsibility that damage the stakeholders.
This consolidation, along with others in the health services industry, factors a drive to cut costs and thus, increase revenues. By combining purchasing power and control over a large percentage of the drug industry, PBM’s can negotiate reductions in drug costs for themselves and their consumers. They can procure less expensive generic drugs from generic manufacturers, negotiate rebates and disc...
"In the past two decades or so, health care has been commercialized as never before, and professionalism in medicine seems to be giving way to entrepreneurialism," commented Arnold S. Relman, professor of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School (Wekesser 66). This statement may have a great deal of bearing on reality. The tangled knot of insurers, physicians, drug companies, and hospitals that we call our health system are not as unselfish and focused on the patients' needs as people would like to think. Pharmaceutical companies are particularly ruthless, many of them spending millions of dollars per year to convince doctors to prescribe their drugs and to convince consumers that their specific brand of drug is needed in order to cure their ailments. For instance, they may present symptoms that are perfectly harmless, and lead potential citizens to believe that, because of these symptoms, they are "sick" and in need of medication. In some instances, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States misleads both the public and medical professionals by participating in acts of both deceptive marketing practices and bribery, and therefore does not act within the best interests of the consumers.
.... Arkansas has one of the highest numbers of STLs in the United States. In an effort to recoup the costs of dealing with the meth epidemic, twenty counties in Arkansas filed a suit in a federal district court against Pfizer, Inc., and other companies that make or distribute cold and allergy medications. What is the defendants’ ethical responsibility in this case, and to whom do they owe it? Why? [Ashley County, Arkansas v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir.2009)]
Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), act as an intermediary between the payor and everyone else in the health-care system. They generally make money through service fees from large customer contracts for processing prescriptions, operating mail-order pharmacies, and negotiating with pharmacies and drug makers. Their contracts can include incentives for cutting costs (Gryta, T., 2011). The use of a comprehensive generics program can significantly lower prescription drug costs, control utilization and play a major role in helping to improve overall patient outcomes. An estimated $35-$40 billion worth of branded drugs will lose their patent protection within the next five years, allowing them to be processed and marketed in generic form. Prescription drugs losing their patents are represented in some of the highest cost, highest utilization therapeutic categories, including depression, hypertension, gastrointestinal, pain management and antihistamines. The various pricing strategies that could be used to charge employers for prescription drugs used as drug pricing by PBMs utilizes the following tools are:
Many businesses that achieve great success become greedy and want more. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Turing, have been overpricing life-saving
It is said that name-brand prescription drugs in Canada cost approximately 40% less than they do in America. But it is illegal for the transport of drugs from Canada to America. Why? It is because Pharmaceuticals are simply greedy and prey on victims that are in need of their products to survive. It makes it hard for large households on a budget to purchase drugs to keep healthy. The way pharmaceutical companies look at their clients is like this: It is a life or death situation for them so the customers have to buy it in order to survive. According to the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry, expectedly, made it at the top of the list of the most profitable. The top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more profit-money than the top seven media companies, the top seven airline companies, the top seven oil companies, and the top seven car manufacture companies. (…cost so much, CNN) The profits of pharmaceutical companies are outrageous and extreme. There are many reasons to why these companies are greedily taking advantage of customers. The number one reason is because people who are need of these prescriptions have no other choice but to purchase them.
3Walker, Hugh: Market Power and Price levels in the Ethical Drug Industry; Indiana University Press, 1971, P 25.
Martinez, Barbara “Firms Paid to Trim Drug Costs Also Toil for Drug Makers” The Wall Street
When a drug does make it to market and is successful, companies need to make up for the money spent in development as well as the cost of drugs which did not make it to market. After all investments are taken care of, there is still the need for profit. Some are concerned that if the United States government implements control over prescription drug costs, then private firms will be less motivated to invest in pharmaceutical development, fearing they will not make their investment back. This would supply pharmaceutical companies with less finances for the research and development process. According to the information collected by Abbott and Vernon, a drop in the price of pharmaceuticals would result in significant loss in investment in research and development (Abbott and Vernon).
10. Collis, David, and Troy Smith. "Strategy in the Twenty-First Century Pharmaceutical Industry:Merck&Co. and Pfizer Inc." Harvard Business School, 2007: 8-12.