Amgen Whistleblowing Case: Ethics and Medicaid Kickbacks
This paper examines the Amgen whistleblowing case, in which former employees filed lawsuits alleging retaliation after reporting unethical practices at the California-based biotechnology firm. The analysis explores how the allegations contradict Amgen's own Code of Ethics, defines internal and external whistleblowing, and evaluates the ethical motivations behind whistleblower Shawn O'Brien's actions through the lens of utilitarian ethics and Kohlberg's model of moral development. The paper also considers the broader implications of improper drug marketing and Medicaid kickback schemes for corporate ethics and regulatory compliance.
- Introduction to the Amgen Case: Overview of lawsuits and whistleblower allegations
- Amgen's Code of Ethics and the Contradictions: How alleged conduct contradicts Amgen's stated ethics code
- Whistleblowing: Definition and Types: Internal vs. external whistleblowing defined and applied
- Ethical Principles Behind O'Brien's Actions: Utilitarianism and Kohlberg's model applied to O'Brien
- Medicaid Kickbacks and Unethical Behavior: Improper drug marketing as root cause of scandal
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies named ethical frameworks — utilitarianism and Kohlberg's model of moral development — directly to the facts of the case, making abstract theory concrete and relevant.
- It clearly distinguishes between internal and external whistleblowing and uses that distinction to evaluate whether the whistleblower took appropriate procedural steps.
- The paper draws a consistent thread between the company's stated Code of Ethics and the alleged conduct, exposing the gap between policy and practice as the central ethical problem.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: real-world corporate conduct is examined through multiple ethical lenses simultaneously (deontological Code of Ethics, utilitarian motivation, and developmental moral theory). This layered approach is effective for business ethics case studies because it shows that a single incident can be evaluated from several complementary frameworks without contradiction.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a factual overview of the case and the relevant allegations, then moves to the company's own ethical standards as a benchmark for judgment. The third section defines key terms (whistleblowing types) to ground the analysis in accepted academic definitions. The fourth section applies utilitarian ethics and Kohlberg's framework to the whistleblower's motivations. The paper closes by tracing the root cause — improper drug marketing — and framing it as an ethical dilemma with reputational and legal consequences. The Works Cited follows APA-adjacent formatting, though citations appear in MLA style.
Introduction to the Amgen Case
Amgen is a Thousand Oaks, California-based firm that encountered the unenviable task of dealing with lawsuits filed by 15 states on allegations of a Medicaid kickback scheme. The firm also faced two additional whistleblowing lawsuits filed against it in Ventura County by former employees who accused the company of terminating them after they detected unethical practices within the firm's operations and reported the wrongdoings to superiors. Amgen experienced these lawsuits for alleged unethical practices despite having enacted a Code of Ethics that emphasizes the need for employees and all organizational stakeholders to do the right thing.
Amgen's Code of Ethics and the Contradictions
According to Amgen's Code of Ethics, employees are not only encouraged to do the right thing but are also asked to resolve ethical dilemmas by evaluating the legality of proposed actions, ensuring compliance with organizational policies, upholding the company's values, and assessing ethical issues such as rights and respect. Shawn O'Brien's allegations and the alleged retaliation appear contradictory to the principles and practices embedded in that Code of Ethics.
The allegations by O'Brien seemingly contradicted the principles and practices established in the code through a failure to examine the legality of proposed actions. Conversely, the alleged retaliation against O'Brien violates those principles and practices, since they do not foster the adoption of right conduct as stated in company policy. Moreover, the retaliation was not grounded in the firm's values or in an assessment of ethical issues such as rights and respect.
Whistleblowing: Definition and Types
Whistleblowing is defined as an employee's disclosure of unethical, illegitimate, immoral, or illegal practices by employers to people or organizational stakeholders with the capability to enforce effective action ("What is 'Whistleblowing'?" par. 1). In some cases, the term also refers to the disclosure of wrongdoing by organizational members regarding an issue considered to be of public interest. There are two distinct types of whistleblowing: internal and external. Internal whistleblowing is defined as reporting wrongdoing to people within the firm who have adequate authority to address the issue, whereas external whistleblowing is reporting wrongdoing to parties outside the firm, such as the relevant federal agency (Dworkin & Baucus, p. 1281).
Given the facts of the case, O'Brien took appropriate initial steps by conducting internal whistleblowing. However, since those initial efforts proved futile, O'Brien should have considered pursuing external whistleblowing rather than waiting to file a lawsuit only after retaliation occurred.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.