Questions 1 through 7
1. On balance, do you think Merck is an ethical and socially responsible company? Why or why not? How about Pfizer?
In my opinion, Merck is not an ethical and socially responsible company with introducing Vioxx into pharmaceutical market. Before the Vioxx approval by FDA, scientists from University of Pennsylvania found that the drug could bring some serious results such as cardiovascular, and there were many serious cardiovascular problems during testing on patients. However, Merck ignored these negative effects, kept developing Vioxx was order to get ample profits. At the same time , through “Direct-to-consumer advertising”, Merck made customers believe Vioxx that was safer and more effective than other same products. So, I do not think Merck is an ethical and socially responsible company.
Pfizer is not an ethical and socially responsible company. Pfizer refused to take Celebrex off the market when Vioxx had been recalled, even Celebrex had same problems with Vioxx. Prizer wanted to take this chance from big trouble in Vioxx to occupy more market share despite Celebrex can be result in health-attack risks.
2. How could the disaster with Vioxx have been avoided in the first place?
First of all, in my opinion, Merck should listen carefully to suggestions from scientists who are from university of Pennsylvania, which is that Vioxx would lead to heart attacks and strokes. At that time, Merck should be aware of risk of health for people, and redevelop Vioxx. Moreover, as local government, they should control and monitor pharmaceutical advertising, avoid customers being tricked through fake data from this kind of pharmaceutical advertising.
3. What is your opinion of pharmaceutical advertising?
Firstly, this kind of pharmaceutical advertising in terms of direct-to-customer can improve patient awareness to drugs. For instance, a person with disease does not know that there are some drugs that can cover and