Abstract In this paper I will discuss anti-trust law as it relates to pharmaceuticals. The company in question is being investigated on the grounds that they are intentionally delaying the release of generic versions of its best selling anti-depressant. I will discuss why the company would want to delay this release, the legal barriers for other companies to enter this market, and the ethical dilemmas apparent in this situation. I will be specifically discussing the anti-trust lawsuit which involved Bayer and its drug Cipro and another similar suit involving Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc and its drug Cardizem CD. Antitrust Law and the Ethical Ramifications of Generic versus Brand Name Drugs Antitrust laws are on the books in the U.S. to prevent companies from cornering the market on a specific product, ensuring fair competition and lower prices for consumers.
Not only do poorly treated workers typically make poor-quality goods, but U.S. companies that aren’t careful about sweatshops could face the costly job of reputation repair if a watchdog group links their brands to workplace abuses (Viedermann, 2007). Another ethical issue that must be addressed is the fact that environmental laws are less formal in the country of Frostburg. Environmental laws have a huge impact on the food industry. They affect the safety of the consumers who ingest our products. The chocolate products potentially manufactured in Frostburg would not be inspected regularly, nor, would the protective chemical and pesticides needed would not be available.
The medical community was not represented correctly charging that medical science only considers the “risk to reward ratio”. The agenda is not hidden when taking into consideration the other side. It becomes evident that the medical community was involved in finding a cure. What is most appalling to me is the exclusion of the fact that Dr. William B. Rizzo was the first to implicate the oils would suppress the fatty acids that build up in the blood of those infected and was the first to test the oils erucic acid and oleic acid in laboratory studies, It was not Mr. Odone. (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/09/science/lorenzo-s-oil-a-movie-outruns-science.html) What sells movie tickets is the unbelievable story of overcoming overwhelming opposition
The company seemed to be aware of the toxic and carcinogenic characteristics of the product, but would have hidden it to the public. * Concerns linked to PCB and insecticides in general include appearance of resistant “super weeds” and buying back
Monsanto does not maintain an ethical culture as they let down their stakeholders ethically with the production of Agent Orange. “Ethical culture is the component of corporate culture that captures the values and norms that an organization defines as appropriate conduct” (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013, p. 16). In the early 1980’s, Monsanto began a new venture in biotechnology and in 1994 they introduced the first products of soybean, cotton, and canola seeds that were engineered to be resistant of the herbicide, Roundup. They called it Roundup Ready seeds. 2.
1. A market driven approach is not appropriate for the health care industry. Market-driven health care is part of a pattern of government and corporate policy initiatives and over the last several decades has one thing in common: they strengthen corporate power over people by lowering people's expectations in life, and by reducing their economic, social, and emotional security. The values of health professionals, and a concern for other people and not self-interest should be the basis of health care. I am opposed to the tradeoff between care quality and efficiency.
Nowadays, the rejection of corruption is an integral part of any company’s social responsibility. Corruption is deemed incompatible with sustainable development in view of social, economic, and environmental damages caused by it. However, the fight against corruption has been considered Dorfman, Lori, et al. "Soda And Tobacco Industry Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns: How Do They Compare?." Plos Medicine 9.6 (2012): 1-7.Academic Search Premier.
The fundamental principle of Natural Law is to do good and to avoid evil – a difficulty with this would be that this often requires a value judgement as it may not be clear where the ‘good’ is to be found. Our telos, for Aquinas, is reached by ensuring that we follow the Primary precepts. The first of these is to preserve life. Clearly in a business context this would mean that Natural Law would not advocate allowing businesses to develop by experimenting on Human embryos as this could be classed as being involved in the destruction of life. In the same way it would judge as unethical private health companies that were involved in undertaking abortions.
In the article “Too safe for our own good?” published in “The Washington Times” July 21, 2010, the authors Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko report the overuse of the ‘’precautionary principle’’, which is defined as ‘’a belief that governments should implement regulatory measures to prevent or restrict actions that raise even conjectural threats of harm to human health or the environment’’. As an example, the authors discussed Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical contained in consumer products. The authors state that The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied the banning of BPA because it was not found evidence that this chemical can cause negative effects on people’s health. Conversely, environmental activists sustain the idea that BPA causes considerable damage, because of this it should be banned. In addition, Miller and Conko argue that regulatory decisions should be based on risk-benefit.
Before they made any decision, they should hold an ethical meeting about the improvement of fuel tank, if they would change their mind by paying more then people would not have to die. In this case, I think Cost-benefit analysis should not be use in this case, because it is very unethical and inhumanity to determine a number of life that have to sacrifice, just because the unwillingness of Ford to pay more for the adjustments of fuel systems. When applying cost benefit analysis in this case study, Ford will either improve the fuel tank or chosen not to go ahead with the fuel tank adjustment, then at least 180 will burn to death, 180 will be injuries, and 2100 vehicles will be burned. Ford was making a decision based on numbers that seems to be right, but it is allowing a certain number of people to die or be injured even though they could have prevented it with paying more for the alteration of fuel tank. This seems to be a disregard for human life.