Merck's ethical obligations in distributing river blindness treatment

¶ … American government, and the governments of affected areas as well as with international agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), on sharing related details of the drug such as its cost, development, and dissemination, without our relinquishing control of the distribution of the drug. It is, particularly, important that we maintain control since the affected population may not have access to health-care facilities, therefore commitment must be secured from relevant governments and international agencies that the drug will be distributed in a reliable, consistent, ethical, and above-board manner.

To that end, therefore, the drug will only be produced if our requirements on distribution are met. In my opinion, since Merck is a research company and distribution is not their specialty, Merck should not involve itself in that process. Moreover, marketing and distribution costs are high making it pragmatically more commonsensical that the money should be directed towards actual production of the drug or towards R&D activities than towards activities that the company can easily delegate to others.

It is also important that we include shareholders into our decision-making, informing them of the abstract value of the program and implementing guidelines to protect efficient and ethical distribution.

Additional guidelines should be structured for involved researchers and directors of research projects in order to bind them to ethical and reliable research methodologies and techniques. Cooperation should be established with governments and international agencies in informing them on Merck's intentions to alleviate diseases common in the developing world and the company's, consequent, expectation of government and other institutional interventions and relief. Examples of Merck's intentions, for instance, may include sinking a percentage of its budget into research for profit-free drugs that would be used to alleviate disease in certain Third World regions. Merck, accordingly, may wish to strike conventions with international agencies in order to share research and distribution costs.

As a utilitarian enterprise, where the greatest amount of good is being created for the largest possible number, the distribution should proceed with creating the drug. However, Merck's insisting on achieving this independently lessens the profitability of shareholders and organization (and pragmatically and ethically the organization has to consider the interests of its shareholders), so, to that end, it is recommended that Merck be liberated from the responsibilities of distribution and from associated costs.

Faults in the distribution strategy

It is of deepest concern that the distribution strategy mistakes urgency for convenience. The World Health Organization (WHO) has observed that six million individuals are at risk of loosing their sight, despite which the distribution coalition is still procrastinating preferring a geographical strategy to the urgent need to reach as many people in as fast a time as possible

The project of drug distribution faces tremendous challenges. There is the problem of inaccessibility. Most of the people in these impoverished areas live in regions that are unconnected by roads or any other transportation system, living far from hospitals, pharmacies, health personnel and institutions, and from any commercial system as it is understood in the conventional sense of the word. Superfluous drugs, therefore, languish in government warehouses or end up on the black market, raising additional dilemmas.

How long can Merck keep up free distribution?

Despite Merck's most strenuous endeavors and admirable idealism, it needs to recover some of its lost margins and cannot afford to distribute free drugs forever. From a simple financial sustainability point-of-view and Ivermectin profitability perspective alone, reason would dictate that Merck recuperate some of its losses through government-assistance such as via tax-relaxation polities. This is all the more crucial since Merck's employees and shareholders would suffer from a diminished returns or from a no returns policy and it would, therefore, be not only unethical but also foolish for Merck to distribute its drugs without promise of some sort of profit, or return, on its charitable activities.

In short, survival of a firm necessitates harmony between philanthropy and business. Merck needs to equilibrate both in order to fulfill its responsibilities towards its shareholders whilst accomplishing its social goals.

Alternatives:

1) Proceed with self-distribution, whilst investigating whether PR can be established in order to promote Merck's generosity.

2) Temporarily, at least, relinquish the idea of creating a cure for river blindness concentrating instead on other less costly but equally essential concerns such as AIDS.

The Business Enterprise Trust. (1991). Merck & Co., Inc. Massachusetts, MA: Harvard Business School