Merck and Vioxx

Merck and Vioxx

Merck researched and developed a drug that they called Rofecoxib; the brand names are Vioxx, Ceoxx and Ceeoxx. Rofecoxib belongs to a group of NSAID drugs used for osteoporis, dysmenorreoria,acute pain, and musculoskeletal problems . Rofecoxib is not the only NSAID (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) on the market, we have Ibuprofen, Naproxen and Asprin, some of which are available over the counter (OTC), which means you do not have to have a physician's prescription to purchase. For the purpose of this paper we will hereafter refer to the drug as Vioxx. Merck started marketing Vioxx in May of 1999; in 2000 a study was published in the Journal called VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research study), which showed that Vioxx was associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications then the other NSAIDs on the market. But it also showed that patients who were given Vioxx had four times as many heart attacks then the other NSAIDs. Merck also instructed their sales people when asked about the VIGOR study to point out the gastrointestinal benefits but to refuse to comment on the rest of it. Since physicians get most of their information concerning a drug from the company that markets it, most kept prescribing the drug. Because Merck went ahead kept marketing Vioxx, several patients have died of myocardial infarctions caused by the taking of the drug. Was this an acceptable number? As we know, no drug is fail-safe, there are going to be a limited number of patients that cannot tolerate a drug and sometimes, unfortunately they die from taking the drug. Last year alone, Merck reported sales in excess of $2.5 Billion from Vioxx, no small potatoes. Did Merck do what Ford did with the Pinto car back in 1978 and do a cost-analysis of going ahead and marketing a defective drug because it would cost them less to settle the law suits then to dump the drug or try to fix the problem? Raymond Gilmartin is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Merck; he recently addressed a group of MBA students and stated the following:

"Merck has maintained a long history of adhering to strict ethical standards and our voluntary decision to take Vioxx off the market immediately following clinical reports showing risks associated with taking the drug is but one example of this," he said.

Did Merck take the drug off the market because they suddenly seen the light and found it was killing patients or did they take it off of the market because they were caught red-handed trying to make a profit off of a drug they knew was dangerous?

I am going to evaluate Merck's actions under Utilitarianism, since utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that an action is right if it produces, or if it tends to produce, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action.

The people and entities that were affected by Merck's actions were their employees, the integrity of the Company, their shareholders, the physicians that trusted their salespeople to give them accurate information, the patients that took the drug, and the families of the patients that took the drug. The health industry in general was impacted, after this scandal emerged, people started questioning the integrity and honesty of the FDA, drug companies, their physicians and the pharmacies that dispense the drugs. People want to feel safe and that they can trust the aforementioned agencies to make sure what they are prescribed is safe to use.

The dominant consideration is what value should a drug company place on human life? How many deaths are "acceptable" when making the decision to market a drug? In the US alone over 10 million prescriptions were written for Vioxx, and as a result there has been over 27000 heart attacks and cardiac deaths. Is this an acceptable number?

If the drug had never been marketed, Merck would have lost millions in research and development costs, but they could have kept working on the drug or dumped it completely and went in a different direction. Pfizer markets a similar drug called Celebrex that doesn't cause the problems that Vioxx does. The patients would have still had NSAIDs to use, we have Ibuprofen, Naproxen and aspirin, they might have suffered some gastrointestinal problems but I am sure if asked they would prefer that to sudden