Merck\'s Vioxx Catastrophe and Other Problems ewton Acker, 71, was on a bicyclin
ID: 326291 • 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 settling the awsuits could well run into the tens of billions of dollars, which would be the biggest onslaught the drug industry had ever seen. Merck's stock dropped $33 billion 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 In value between September 30 and November 1. point?Explanation / Answer
5. No, Merck CEO Gilmartin did not acted wisely in recalling Vioxx. This is because firstly, FDA is the regulatory body in the country who did not instructed the company to take such an extreme step. If the situation would had been out of control or a big danger for the patients then FDA would had been interrupted which was not the case. Thus it was not a wise decision. secondly, if Glmartin was so concerned then the logical step would have had been to place the warning promptly on the drug about its probable ill effects and to restrictthe phramceutical advertising of the drug. Finally, if the drug was so risky and dangerous then the doctors and the patients should had stopped its use but it was not the case since the amount of good the drug was causing was far more than its bad outcomes. Thus, the copany was not solely responsible for the bad output.
6. The statement is not completely true. This is because of the fact that these pharmaceutical companies are operating to make profits, they are marely dong business. But this does not mean that they are not concerned about the robable ill efeccts of their drugs or their responsibility towards the society. Thse pharma comanies are a big names in the market and are eing trusted by millions of custoomers owing to their good performance over some past decades. They are what they are today because they have earned it, they have earned the trust and loyality of teir customers. They launch a product after years of researcch an testing to get the best results. They do this with the intention of success and earnung profits but not at the expense of their loyal customers. It is not so that these companues will earn profits for single time and dissappear but they are here in the market to stay and rule for many decades. This can be only done by providing it spatients with the best of the results. Further, Governmet is also playing its part to keep an eye on these companies through regulatory bodies like FDA who have the right and authority to step in the minute something suspicious takes place.
7. FDA is one of the most prestegious and well trusted governing body in the country. If the citizens of the country believe in their elected government then they have to believe in the governing bodies like FDA who have proved their clear record and good functioning for agood period of time. It is because of the timely intervention of FDA that the drug companies fear it and thus work in the most appropriate and ethical manner.Thus it cannot e said that pharmaceutical companies pay FDA money to allow them to operate at the expanse of the health of its citizens