You Are An Executive With A Large Pharmaceutical Company

You Are An Executive With A Large Pharmaceutical Company And You Have

You are an executive with a large pharmaceutical company and you have to decide whether to market a product that might have undesirable side effects for a small percentage of users. How should you decide whether to sell the product? Specifically, what are the steps you would employ in reaching your decision? How does the theory of ethics that is applied affect your answer? In discussing the theoretical aspect, you must identify and discuss at least 2 relevant theories from this week.

Paper For Above instruction

Making ethical decisions in the pharmaceutical industry involves complex considerations, especially when determining whether to market products with potential adverse side effects for a small subset of users. As an executive, it is crucial to adopt a systematic approach that incorporates ethical principles and frameworks to guide decision-making, ensuring patient welfare and corporate responsibility are prioritized alongside business interests.

The first step in this process involves comprehensive risk assessment. This entails gathering all relevant data regarding the product’s efficacy, side effects, and the likelihood and severity of adverse reactions. The risk-benefit analysis becomes central here: weighing the potential health benefits against possible harm. For instance, if the product addresses a severe medical condition with limited alternatives, the acceptable threshold for adverse effects might be higher. Conversely, if the side effects could be life-threatening or significantly impair quality of life, further deliberation is warranted.

The second step involves stakeholder consultation. This encompasses engaging medical professionals, regulatory agencies, patient advocacy groups, and ethicists to obtain diverse perspectives and ensure that all ethical and safety considerations are addressed. Transparency is paramount; information about the potential side effects and risk mitigation strategies should be communicated honestly to these stakeholders.

Thirdly, reflective ethical analysis is vital. Two prominent ethical theories that guide this analysis are utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Utilitarianism promotes actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize harm. From this perspective, if the product’s benefits for the majority outweigh the risks for the minority, its marketing might be justified, provided that steps are taken to minimize harm to those who might be adversely affected. This approach aligns with the principle of beneficence, emphasizing actions that promote well-being.

In contrast, deontological ethics focuses on duties and rights. It asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of consequences. Applying this framework, an executive must consider whether marketing the product violates any moral duties, such as the obligation not to harm or to provide informed consent. If the potential side effects are significant, marketing the product without adequate safeguards could be deemed ethically unjustifiable under this theory, emphasizing respect for patient autonomy and rights.

The decision-making process should also incorporate the precautionary principle, which suggests that in the presence of scientific uncertainty about potential harm, caution should prevail. If there is ambiguity about the severity of side effects, the company should err on the side of safety, perhaps withholding marketing until more definitive data is available.

Finally, post-market surveillance and ongoing monitoring are essential. Even after the product is launched, collecting real-world data allows for swift action if adverse effects are more widespread or severe than initially believed. Ethical responsibility does not end once a product hits the market; ongoing assessment ensures continued protection of consumer interests.

In conclusion, deciding whether to market a pharmaceutical product with potential undesirable side effects involves careful risk assessment, stakeholder engagement, adherence to ethical principles like utilitarianism and deontology, and a commitment to ongoing vigilance. The choice ultimately hinges on balancing the potential benefits against the moral imperatives to do no harm, respect patient rights, and uphold corporate integrity.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Shaw, W. H. (2020). Moral Issues in Business (14th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). The ethics of research with human subjects. The Hastings Center Report, 48(4), 13-15.
• Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & Freedman, B. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Prince, R. (2014). Ethical issues in pharmaceutical advertising and marketing. Journal of Medical Marketing, 14(1), 43-50.
• World Medical Association. (2013). WMA Declaration of Helsinki — Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
• Brody, H. (2003). Ethical issues in the regulation of pharmaceuticals. The New England Journal of Medicine, 349(24), 2358-2360.