Big Pharma

I. Introduction

"Big Pharma" refers to the pharmaceutical industry in the United States of America ("USA") that has great commercial and political power. As this definition suggests, the existence and the actions of Big Pharma will directly impact the society at large and the government itself. This exposition aims to explore the ethical issues that arise out of the relationship between an industry like Big Pharma and the government as well as the society in the USA.

Based on the theory of descriptive ethics, drug corporations are likely to argue that since the rest of the corporations in this industry engage in similar practices, it must be acceptable behaviour. However, this exposition is concerned about normative ethics which touches on what ought to be and what ought not to be.

II. Business and Society

One highly identifiable relationship would be between Big Pharma and the society at large. Healthcare needs would be of fundamental importance to any society as a good healthcare system would serve as an indicator of a high standard of living and also enhance productivity in the economy.

Despite its importance, drugs are developed and manufactured by private entities. And more often than not, this places great power in the hands of these private corporations that discharge the functions of drug manufacturing. In the USA, the power of Big Pharma is even greater because of the dwindling scene of alternative medicine .

From the business standpoint, the corporations within Big Pharma owe obligations to their shareholders to maximise their profits. A breach of this duty would likely result in legal ramifications for the corporation. Hence, the greatest desire of the company would be to push for greater profits through greater sales revenues. This could likely be the reason for the alleged wrongdoings of the industry that are listed in the case study. On the other hand, society desires for Big Pharma to produce safe and effective drugs as well as to price them in a fair manner. A significant divergence between these two groups of stakeholders in the country can be seen.

Subsequently, the impact of Big Pharma's actions on different types of societal stakeholders will be explored and the ethical principles applied.

A. The Safety Issue

First and foremost, the actions of Big Pharma would affect the consumers of its drugs. By not having adequate safety standards through appointing doctors with dubious credentials to oversee clinical trials as well as covering up the results of such trials, Big Pharma seems to be pursuing profits at the expense the consumers of its drugs. These drugs have side effects that could potentially generate more health problems than it cures. This may cause undue suffering for those who consume the drugs in the hope of a full recovery from their illnesses.

One view of the relationship between ethics and law is that law is the codified version of ethics and should represent the fundamental duties and responsibilities of the individual or corporation. On the other hand, an ethical approach is regarded as a standard that is higher than that of legal duties. It can be seen that in this case, the actions of Big Pharma is likely to fail even the legal standards required of it and hence would most definitely fail the ethical standards that they should uphold.

B. Salesmanship over Science

The case argues that Big Pharma prefers salesmanship over science. This simply means that instead of pushing for greater innovation to develop more "important" drugs, Big Pharma is spending its money on advertising and sales strategies in order to maximise profits from their existing drugs. It is further argued that the corporations should be focusing their efforts on researching on new drugs to combat diseases like AIDS.

Although efforts to develop such drugs would be preferred, it should be noted that corporations does not owe society an obligation to compromise their own interests to meet such needs. Corporations are not charitable organisations and they operate for profits. Although investments in research for better drugs would be laudable, it is unfair for society to see drug corporations as owing them a duty to do so. Having said that, it should be noted that if there were a demand for those drugs, Big Pharma would definitely rise up to the occasion to provide them. It all boils down to the interplay of the market demand and market supply.

This approach would be supported by the principle of the conventionalist ethic which states that individuals should act to further their self interests so long as they do not violate the law. In this scenario, there is no legal obligation of the corporation to undertake to solve the health problems of the community.

It may be an attractive option to argue that given the utilitarian approach, Big Pharma should strive to do the greatest good for the greatest number and should abandon their salesmanship for science. Also, it can also be argued that the ends would justify the means. However, this is neither economically viable nor commercially viable since the imposition of greater moral obligations on the corporation would deter entrepreneurship.

Therefore, in the USA, there have been efforts by the federal government to establish a pharmaceutical division under the National Institute of Health in order to conduct research on drugs . This simply shows the recognition of the above proposition that it is simply not feasible to impose the duty of producing new "important" drugs on Big Pharma. Moreover, such efforts by the US government also recognises that the spending on drug research would be justified by its end results.

C. Advertisements

Large advertising budgets may compromise the welfare of consumers because it would translate into higher drug costs. Advertisement has always been a controversial issue. The proponents of it claim that it is an avenue to achieve consumer satisfaction. In contrast, the opposition claims that advertisements are essentially a waste of money on something that produces no net consumer benefits.

It is submitted that being overly focused on the above arguments is fruitless because it does not provide helpful guidelines for corporations to adhere to. Since advertising as a marketing strategy is here to stay, the issue should be how to strike a balance between spending too little and spending too much on advertising. This is a delicate balance to strike and it is needful for the government to provide guidelines on the extent to which