Merck's Moral Obligations

I believe there are several different questions involving morality at play when it comes to Merck’s decision. First, the question of whether Vagelos was morally obligated by his own code of ethics to research the drug. There was also the question of his moral obligation to the company that he worked for and the potential loss of revenue over his decision. If we look at the corporation as an individual there could also be said to be a moral question of whether or not a company should weigh it’s own profit or the benefit to the individuals who would be benefited by it more highly. I believe that in all cases the morally right decision was to produce the drug and also to distribute the product at no cost. Independently the act of choosing to …show more content…
By making this decision he wasn’t guaranteeing a loss in revenue for the company. By not producing the drug he was guaranteeing that people would die unnaturally or have a severely reduced quality of life. The decision he made could not only be seen as an effective way to save lives, but could have also been used effectually as a marketing campaign for the company itself. Marketing makes up a major percentage of prescription drug companies budgets in the U.S. I think it could be argued that had Vagelos not researched the drug he would have made an immoral decision by the company as well as the individuals who were helped by it. In fact, in a study recently published showed that 9 out of 10 of the largest pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on R&D. Merck specifically spends 9.5 billion on marketing and sales while only spending 7.5 billion on research and development. The $200 million (and 3.5 billion) that it would cost to research and distribute the drug are close to a third of the company's yearly marketing budget. In conclusion, I believe the company made a morally correct decision by producing Mectizan for not only the people saved but also their company as