Mgmt4308 Project One Case Study Instructions Case Subject

Mgmt4308project One Case Study Instructionscase Subjectthe Ceo Wh

Please write an 8-10 pages long essay analyzing and discussing the following topics following the order of Tasks 1 to 6: 1. Summarize the case; 2. Identify ethical issues; 3. Identify and discuss stakeholders; 4. Explain which stakeholders should be involved to resolve the issues; 5. List and justify ethical principles for solving the issues; 6. Recommend a plan of action with positive and negative consequences.

Paper For Above instruction

In the case titled "The CEO Who Saved a Life and Lost His Job," the narrative revolves around a critical ethical dilemma faced by the biotechnology company Chimerix and its CEO, Kenneth Moch, during a high-stakes situation involving a terminally ill child named Josh Hardy. The case underscores the tension between compassionate use of experimental drugs, corporate responsibility, regulatory compliance, and ethical obligations toward individual patients versus broader societal and business interests.

Initially, Josh Hardy, suffering from kidney cancer and subsequent complications, sought access to an unapproved drug, brincidofovir, developed by Chimerix. The Hardy family’s public campaigns and social media mobilization pressed the company to provide the drug on compassionate use grounds. Meanwhile, Chimerix faced its own set of challenges: it was a small, cash-strapped biotech with no approved products on the market and significant financial and regulatory hurdles to approval of brincidofovir. The CEO, Kenneth Moch, was confronted with the dilemma of balancing the immediate, life-saving needs of an individual patient against the potential impacts on the company’s regulatory approval process and future profits.

Faced with mounting public pressure, social media outrage, and threats, coupled with the company’s concern that providing the drug might compromise its clinical trial data and regulatory approval trajectory, Moch chose to withdraw brincidofovir from compassionate use for Josh and later resigned as CEO. This decision sparked intense debate about corporate ethics, corporate responsibility to individual patients, and the ethical obligations of biotech companies in the context of experimental drugs and compassionate use. The case illustrates the difficult choices faced by pharmaceutical companies and their leadership regarding balancing ethical duties with strategic business considerations.

Ethical issues that emerged include the responsibility of drug companies to provide potentially life-saving treatments in urgent situations, the conflicts between individual patient needs and broad societal benefits, the role of social media in influencing corporate decision-making, and the responsibilities of corporate leaders in managing public and ethical expectations. The dilemma also involves assessing whether the company’s refusal to provide the drug was ethically justified given its potential impact on trust, future innovation, and regulatory approval.

Stakeholders in this case encompass the Hardy family, who prioritize immediate access to the drug to save Josh’s life; Chimerix’s employees and shareholders, who are concerned with the company’s regulatory success and financial viability; the FDA and regulatory agencies, which oversee drug approvals and safety; healthcare providers, including doctors at St. Jude; the broader community advocating for drug accessibility; and society at large, which depends on innovation balanced with ethical standards. The viewpoints of these stakeholders vary: the Hardy family and patient advocacy groups emphasize compassion and immediate outcomes, while the company seeks to protect its legal and regulatory interests and future profitability. Regulatory agencies aim to safeguard public health while facilitating drug development, and investors focus on returns and company growth.

Given these viewpoints, the stakeholders who should be involved in resolving the ethical issues are primarily the company’s leadership, regulatory authorities, and possibly independent ethics committees. Ethical decision-making necessitates including those who can balance the immediate needs of the patient with long-term corporate responsibility and societal standards. The CEO’s role involves mediating between these interests, ensuring transparency, and upholding ethical principles, such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and respect for persons.

Several ethical principles are pertinent to resolving the issues: beneficence (promoting the patient’s well-being), nonmaleficence (avoiding harm), justice (fair allocation of resources and equitable access), autonomy (respect for patient and family wishes), and fidelity (trustworthiness and commitment to ethical standards). For instance, beneficence and nonmaleficence justify providing access to potentially life-saving experimental treatments, especially when no alternatives exist. Justice raises questions about fair access and resource allocation, while respect for autonomy supports honoring patient and family wishes.

In proposing a plan of action, a balanced approach includes establishing clear policies for compassionate use that prioritize transparency, ethical oversight, and early stakeholder engagement. For example, creating an independent review board to evaluate compassionate use requests could ensure ethically justified decisions that consider individual needs, safety, and broader ethical implications. The plan should promote increased communication with stakeholders, investment in early-stage trials, and policies that facilitate responsible compassionate use without jeopardizing regulatory pathways.

The anticipated positive consequences of such a plan include increased trust in the company, better public perception, and more ethical treatment of patients. Negative consequences might involve higher costs, delays in drug development, and potential risks of misuse or unanticipated adverse events. A well-structured strategy aims to mitigate these risks through rigorous oversight and stakeholder engagement, ensuring that the company remains competitive while upholding ethical standards. This approach aligns with corporate social responsibility and fosters innovative governance in biotech firms.

References

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2015). Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • FDA. (2018). Policies and Procedures for Compassionate Use. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov
  • Grady, C. (2015). Respect for Autonomy in Medical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(6), 534–538.
  • Narveson, J. (2002). Ethics and Political Philosophy. Broadview Press.
  • World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
  • Greenwood, J. (2014). Social Media and Ethical Dilemmas in Biotechnology. Bioethics, 28(5), 355–361.
  • Sanghavi, D. (2015). Ethical Challenges of Compassionate Use in Oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(22), 2497–2499.
  • Donovan, K. (2012). Ethical Approaches to Compassionate Use of Experimental Therapies. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 23(3), 189–197.
  • Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2014). Guidance for Compassionate Use Policies. BIO Publications.

Related Assignments