Making false claims about your product and knowingly advertising it, is immoral. Deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. This violates the respect principle. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into purchases that they might otherwise avoid. The owner is treating the consumer as a means only and not as end in themselves.
Drug companies that test trial medications in foreign nations are not acting ethically. Testing of experimental medications should be done in the host nation where the medications are being fabricated. A major moral difficulty that is being looked at with this is that the foreign countries that these clinical trials are occurring in are not completely taught on the dangers or completely comprehend what they are getting themselves into. For all the reasons mentioned above, I believe the drug companies are not acting ethically and go against the principles of act utilitarianism. Is American industry at too much risk of lawsuits to remain competitive?
By not mentioning other companies that use the same tactics, he puts a negative image on Nike alone instead of all American companies who choose to outsource manufacturing to foreign countries. I think it’s kind of ironic that Mr. Ballinger is doing research on ethical practices of American companies when he himself is using an unethical approach to his research. Another fact that he fails to mention is that what Nike is doing is not illegal. Unethical, yes, but due to weak policies in some of these foreign companies, it allows for American, or any other nation’s companies, to exploit these practices. Also, why doesn’t he mention anything about the retailers who sell Nike shoes?
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.
Kodak was filing false allegations against the company, claiming that Fuji was engaging in anticompetitive trade patterns, and thereby utilizing the political process as well as the issues surrounding U.S. and Japanese trade to gain some of the competitive advantage it had lost with the growth of Fuji. As a result, it was only appropriate that Fuji would retaliate in order to defend itself from those false allegations. According to Fuji’s lawyers, there seemed to be many hole in Kodak’s complaint such as the fact that Kodak had overlooked its own market dominance in the U.S. in comparison to Fuji, as well as the provision in Section 301 about filing complaints. 2. Why is Kodak using this strategy?
Russell claims, lying is morally wrong, Carson believes in some cases it is preferable and Mazur states that different traditions advocate the lying in different circumstances. In brief, until and unless there is a question to save the life of an innocent person lying is morally wrong because, it diminishes trust, withholds the information that one might need, weakens our relationships, and above all it obliterates our honesty. Lying is a threat to the trust of liar. Trust is like a sticker one it got dispatched then it can never be pasted again perfectly. Similarly ones if the lying is mixed with trust then a threat against trust of any relation are produced.
Recently, Wiretime ran an advertisement in a well-known industry magazine blasting BUGusa by stating that their products are inferior and have a very limited lifespan. This would be classified as an intentional tort because these statements “have the potential to impact business relationships and operations” (Melvin, 2011). This particular case would be listed as defamation and categorized further as trade libel. To be considered trade libel the “statement needs to be (1) a clear and specific reference to the disparaged party or product (e.g., using the actual brand name of the product), (2) made with either knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth, and (3) communicated to a third party (similar to defamation)” (Melvin, 2011). References Melvin, S. P. (2011).
First, the company leadership knowingly replaced the naturally occurring ingredients with the synthetic ingredients without changing the label on the packaging. This action violated the regulations set in place in the 1960s allowing consumers to have adequate and truthful information about the products they purchase. Second, the chemicals the company used to replace the natural ingredients are known to cause serious physical side effects including heart attacks and strokes. These side effects are a result of the stronger potency of the chemically generated ingredients as opposed to the naturally occurring ingredients the company originally utilized for the products. Finally, there is a dangerous lack of oversight by FDA regulators into the safety violations of companies such as Chemins leading to a reduced rate of public health and safety.
Defects in marketing have to do with the improper instructions and failures to warn consumer of latent dangers in the product. Product liability is usually judged as a strict liability offense. Strict liability wrongs are not concerned with how careful the defendant was. Converted to products liability terms, a defendant is liable when it is revealed that the product is defective. It is immaterial the
(1) Ethical Assessment of Hank McKinnell’s Actions and the WARN Memo Based on the case study, it is my opinion that unfortunately Hank McKinnell did not handle the Medicare situation in an ethical manor, however, Hank McKinnell’s actions with regards to the WARN memo were ethically neutral, as this was a transactional requirement on the part of the government. Three key areas that could be considered as being ethically questionable are as follows: The first ethically questionable decision on Mr. McKinnell’s part was that he made a deceitful announcement regarding the benefit of the merger, which then did not come true. Mr. McKinnell stated that the merger would enhance research the development pipelines and