Business and professional Ethics 1

Business and professional Ethics

Name
Course
Date

Business and professional Ethics 2

Question 1
For any case that goes before the court it has two sides, one the issue could be
ethically accepted or the issue could be unethical and hence not accepted in the
community or the state. These two sides are determined by the decision the court reaches
if the action is determined to unethical then the person or organization or group
undertaking such practices are said to be guilty. According to this case GlaxoSmithKline
company was found to be undertaking unethical practices hence the US department of
Justice ordered that pharmaceutical giants to pay a fine of $3 billion in the civil and
criminal liability ever encountered in US history (Roehr, 2012).
The ethical concern here is failing to secure health rights of people in the US- life
were not taken into consideration when the company was manufacturing these drugs.
According to United States law companies are mandated to market/sell their drugs
according to the packaging label approved by FDA, but GSK when on Off-labeling their
products-this is a practice whereby pharmaceuticals companies prescribe drugs to
unapproved age group or unapproved indication or unapproved form of administration or
unapproved dosage. The main reason for considering this case unethical was that was
engaged in directly influencing off label use of the pharmaceuticals. For example:
i.

GSK was found to unlawful promoting an antidepressant called Paxil

though it lacked the approval of FDA. This drug is intended to treat patients
under the age of 18. The pharmaceutical company participated in distributing,
publishing and preparing disingenuous medical journal. The journal
misinformed a clinical trial that established efficacy in the treatment of
depression. The most confusing thing DSK did not balance its study with the

Business and professional Ethics 3

data from two of its other studies which Paxil failed to show usefulness in
treating patients under the age of 18.
Question 2
It is morally wrong for GSK not to be able to offer relevant information concerning
Avandia- a diabetes drug. The information obtained from research is considered essential
in determine the safety of the people using the drug. Failing to report the safety data did
not give FDA a chance to determine the continued safety of Avandia. The moral
difference between these concerns is that GSK did not consider the safety of information
that they are releasing to the public making it Security Bridge of information and data.
The security if such information is mandated to FDA. The determination of patients
safety is approved by FDA a national agency mandated to determine the safety of drugs.
The graveness of the data has been evaluated by FDA since 2007 that Avandia has two
black warning: 1st its can lead to congestive heart failure and 2nd it can lead to potential
risk of heart attack.
Question 3
Yes. If the case was considered to be legal by law then the assessment of the case could
be different. The moral right of patients safety remains an important factor to consider
when marketing pharmaceuticals. Organizational and international rights of provision of
health drugs cannot be changed despite the decision that the court takes as of the case of
GSK. This is because drugs such as Avandia have negative effects to people.
Question 4
It is the due responsibility of any food and beverage producing or manufacturing
company to make sure that the products they send to the market are free from health

Business and professional Ethics 4

problem. According to the case provided the companies concerned with such products
dont care about the lives of the people using their products. For example, as shown in the
clip, china companies are producing food and beverage rich in oil and sugar leading to
disease such as diabetes and obesity. The companies on the other hand only market the
products and do not advice the clients on the way of life they should live so as to reduce
such problems.

Question 5
The marketing of soft drinks to schools in Mexico: In this case I do consider this
marketing techniques problematic as the marketers have the due right of marketing their
products and the clients also have the right of determining which products to buy.
The door to door selling of snack foods fortified with micronutrients and marketed
to low income families in Brazil:
This case, I consider it problematic as the marketer should bot market products with
fortified content as well as one with micronutrients. The problem is market to low income
earners a clear indication of disparate individuals-poor community who have no
alternatives hence consume the products. The marketers take advantage of the situation of
the clients to sell them those foodstuffs.
A snack food boat that visits small villages along the Amazon to promote and sell
food and drinks:
I consider this case as not problematic only if the marketers have taken the legal process
of food safety.
Section C

Business and professional Ethics 5

Question 6
Principles and legal rights between the two cases differ in nature of the products being
sent to the market. The moral difference is that the pharmaceuticals have a different
procedure of marketing their products as compared to food related companies. As for
food companies one can market a product as long as it passed through related procedures
but for drug related companies other companies are obligated to research on the same
product to determine its usability as for the case of FDA

Business and professional Ethics 6

Reference
Roehr, B. (2012). GlaxoSmithKline is fined record $3 bn in US. BMJ2012, 345, e4568.