Merck\'s Vioxx Catastrophe and Other Problems ewton Acker, 71, was on a bicyclin
ID: 326228 • Letter: M
Question
Merck's Vioxx Catastrophe and Other Problems ewton Acker, 71, was on a bicycling vacation with his wife in southern France. While he had some arthritis, he was otherwise exceptionally healthy, with low blood pressure and cholesterol. Indicative of his fitness, he bicycled 5,000 miles a year. Indicative of his longevity potential, his parents had lived to age 90. Yet on September 3, 2004, this paragon of good health suddenly died of a stroke. On September 30, four weeks later, Merck pulled Vioxx from the market after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes. "That's the answer," Acker's son, a F-16 pilot, immediately thought, as his dad had been taking Vioxx for 14 months before his death. He blamed Merck for failing to act sooner, and planned to sue Vioxx was a $2.5-billion-a-year arthritis drug and provided well over 10 percent of the $22 billion revenues of the pharmaceutical giant. Some 20 million Americans had taken Vioxx by the time of the recall. Tort lawyers salivated at the tens of thou- sands who may have had "major adverse events" attributable to the drug, and they rushed to set up toll-free numbers to solicit potential clients. The cost of setting the awsuits could well run into the tens of billions of dollars, which would be the biggest gal onslaught the drug industry had ever seen. Merck's stock dropped $33 billion le Let us examine how Merck got into this mess, whether it was fully culpable and ethically a pariah, or whether it was the victim of tragic circumstances What could it have done to prevent this catastrophe, and what could it do at this point? In value between September 30 and November l.Explanation / Answer
1. Merck cannot be considered to be ethical and socially reesponsible company. This can be attributed to the fact that it did launched the drug Vioxx. Some of the early studies did dipected that Vioxx can lead to increased chances of ear attacks in conumed continously over a period of 18 months. Merck dismissed the studies and launched the drug anyway. Secondly, even after knowing the ill effects that the drug can have, company opted for direct to consuer advertising wherein it directly targeted the consumers and made them belive in the drug thereby instigating them to take the drug by wooing them through the advertisements. This increased the number of petients who consumed the drugs thereby increasing the number of people to the potential risk of heart attack via VIoxx. The startegy to opt for direct to consumer advertising for Vioxx by Merck was purly to increase the profits for the company and sidelining the ill impacts of the drugs which is a very unethical and socially irresponsible behaviour of Merck.
Pfizer cannot be considered to be ethical as well since it kept its drug in the market even after knowing its ill effects on the health of the consumers. It decided to earn the profits untill and unless some outer source instigated to to recall its drug which though did not happened. This behavior of Pfizer was also very socially irresponsible behaviour.
2. The disater with Vioxx could had been avioded in the first place by conducting the indepth studies on the drug in the very initiall phase of the testing of the drug and finding the exact source of its possible ill effects. After this the company could have warned the consumers about the exact circumstances and consequenses of the drug.
3. Pharmaeutical advertising is a class of advertising wherein a drug in advertised for the consumes depicting its advantages and probable benifits of consumption like any other general consumption product. These are the drugs that the consumers consume without the prescription of the doctors.
4. Relative risks are the probable risks that are associated with any drugs in form of side effects that cannot be avoided and are a type of part and parcel of the probable advantages and benifits of the drug. Such rsks are are not a gurantee to exist but do have a minimum chance of occurance- not definite but possible.for the drug company tey are like taking a small risk in the path of earning huge profits which is a part f busness. for FDA and consumers, it is a risk worth takng in front of the uncountable number of advantages and the solutions the drug is offering. for the lawyers, it is a loophole that can be encashed if in case the drug fails or becomes a victim of probbable risks.