Ethics And Big Pharma Case Study
Burroughs Wellcome and “Ethics and Big Pharma”
a) Consumer Activist perspective
b) Business perspective
1. Should Big Pharma focus on the creation of shareholder value, the classic objective of business entities, or should this focus be mitigated by the “needs” of patients primarily, but also citizens in general?
a) Consumer Activist perspective:
I believe governments have a strong social and moral responsibility to all its citizens to allow the opportunity of accessing health care, to include medicines. The private industry has a social responsibility with its employees and their communities; they create jobs, provide benefits to their employees (medical insurance, retirement plans, appropriate working conditions, salaries, …show more content…
Any US or foreign patient who suffers from life-threatening illness does not have the guaranteed right to a drug or drugs which treat their condition. If it wasn’t profitable to create and sell these drugs, no business would begin the process of making these drugs in the first place. In that scenario, no one would be able to buy the drug to help them. “The direct research and development costs associated with Retrovir were estimated to be about $50 million” but “when the costs of new plant and equipment to produce Retrovir were also considered, total research and development cost estimates ranged from $80 million to $100 million.” This is an initial investment made mainly by the company. The way to make a profit is to sell the medicine for a price that people are willing to pay. Also, “Wellcome PLC had spent $726 million for research and development on dozens of drugs in the five years preceding approval of Retrovir without producing a major commercial success.” Without this prior investment, they might not have been able to create the current drug. When it is put into prospective of an $826 million was invested to make this drug, they need to set the price fairly high to make a profit. However, the government did help by titling the drug an “orphan drug.” This means that “the orphan drug designation for Retrovir provided a seven-year marketing exclusivity after its commercial introduction, tax credits, and government subsidization of clinical trials.” Knowing this, the government won’t directly set the price but will have an effect on the pricing. “The Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the U.S. House of Representatives had launched an investigation into possible “inappropriate” pricing of Retrovir.” This pressure forced Wellcome PLC to lower prices. However, the business made most of the initial investment so the majority of the responsibility
a) Consumer Activist perspective
b) Business perspective
1. Should Big Pharma focus on the creation of shareholder value, the classic objective of business entities, or should this focus be mitigated by the “needs” of patients primarily, but also citizens in general?
a) Consumer Activist perspective:
I believe governments have a strong social and moral responsibility to all its citizens to allow the opportunity of accessing health care, to include medicines. The private industry has a social responsibility with its employees and their communities; they create jobs, provide benefits to their employees (medical insurance, retirement plans, appropriate working conditions, salaries, …show more content…
Any US or foreign patient who suffers from life-threatening illness does not have the guaranteed right to a drug or drugs which treat their condition. If it wasn’t profitable to create and sell these drugs, no business would begin the process of making these drugs in the first place. In that scenario, no one would be able to buy the drug to help them. “The direct research and development costs associated with Retrovir were estimated to be about $50 million” but “when the costs of new plant and equipment to produce Retrovir were also considered, total research and development cost estimates ranged from $80 million to $100 million.” This is an initial investment made mainly by the company. The way to make a profit is to sell the medicine for a price that people are willing to pay. Also, “Wellcome PLC had spent $726 million for research and development on dozens of drugs in the five years preceding approval of Retrovir without producing a major commercial success.” Without this prior investment, they might not have been able to create the current drug. When it is put into prospective of an $826 million was invested to make this drug, they need to set the price fairly high to make a profit. However, the government did help by titling the drug an “orphan drug.” This means that “the orphan drug designation for Retrovir provided a seven-year marketing exclusivity after its commercial introduction, tax credits, and government subsidization of clinical trials.” Knowing this, the government won’t directly set the price but will have an effect on the pricing. “The Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the U.S. House of Representatives had launched an investigation into possible “inappropriate” pricing of Retrovir.” This pressure forced Wellcome PLC to lower prices. However, the business made most of the initial investment so the majority of the responsibility