Vioxk Case Study

Merck did not act responsible when the issues arose with Vioxx. Corporate Sociel responsibility is defined by Investopedia as,” CSR may also be referred to as "corporate citizenship" and can involve incurring short-term costs that do not provide an immediate financial benefit to the company, but instead promote positive social and environmental change” ("Corporate Social Responsibility Definition | Investopedia"). During a COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM Dr.Grham testified that,” On the other hand, the FDA seems to be uninterested in the fact that--and part of the reason we are here today, Dr. Graham, who did the biggest study on Vioxx, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that he believed that Vioxx contributed to as many as 139,000

David Graham "between 89,000 and 139,000 people had been seriously affected by the drug (Vioxx) ( Jack, 2005)." Merck now faces costly lawsuits, angry investors and falling profits ( Simmons and Stipp, 2004; Nossiter, 2005). As of mid-August of 2005, more than 4,200 civil suits have been filed against the company for Vioxx ("Friday August 19th, 2005 | Houston Public Media"). Many states field charges against Merck including Texas and New Jersey, which Merck’s home office is located in New Jersey. Many have presented Internal Merk documents stating that, “some of the company 's scientists were worried about heightened heart attack risks long before Vioxx was withdrawn from the market” ("Archives | The Star

Profit is important, perhaps though this can be compromised ten fold if the product becomes dangerous to the consumer. Hence the suits that were filed against Merck. The FDA was created by the government to monitor foods and drugs that are released to the citizens of the United States. However, entitities such as the FDA are rather limited to what they can monitor. Therefore, the ethical operations of a company are to disclose the accurate information. Ethically, Merck did recall Vioxx, however, this action was only after many individuals lost their