Merk Case

FILE IS AT:   Merck & Co., Inc. (A).pdf

Link Address: https://troy.instructure.com/courses/41401/files/29019709/download?verifier=0cVZljp1n66fNZmBlivkE41QF0lDIHDHErUDC3ZS&wrap=1

Part 1.

Subject:  Do businesses exist to provide money and value to their owners, or do they exist to provide value to society as a whole? Your task here is simple:

1.  Attached is a case for you to download, print, and read.  Do that before continuing.

2.  Consider yourself in the position of CEO for Merck, and pondering your next move on this matter.  Formulate an opinion of your own about what you think is the "RIGHT ANSWER" regarding a course of action.

3.  Consider opposing viewpoints that others may have (notes help here).

4.  Once you have carefully considered both your opinion and any opinions that you think others might have, post your opinion to the discussion board.  Make sure you explain why you think your answer is the right one, and why you think other answers may not be.

Part 2.

Analyze and comment on the opinions of others.  It is okay to change your opinion if you feel the need, but go back and do it as a reply to your original post.

Note:  Reading this case online will give you no insight.  It was written to address something different and originally had four (4) sections. We will be reviewing only the first three (3).  Part "B" of this will follow immediately after Part "A" closes.  I will be observing your ability to formulate an opinion of your own and express it, as well as how well you analyze and comment on the opinions of others.  Your ability to formulate sound decisions, as well as analyze the decisions of others, is what I am looking for and counts MUCH more than your ability to come up with any particular decision.

I will post the "Right Answer" after the next module's discussion board.

Post to analyze and comment on:

Part 2 Lamb- (Analyze and comment on this post)

I feel like businesses exist to create value for society.  If a business does not create value then it is irrelevant to society.

If I were in the position of CEO for Merck, I would approve the proposal to fund the research for river blindness.  There are a lot of risks, but the case said that it was widely believed that it was likely to be successful.  If the research in the first stages can answer some of the unsettling questions about the impacts on humans and show some successful cases, then it could be worth it to save people from the disease.

If the CEO does not approve the research, then he is not holding true to “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people.  It’s not for the profits.  The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been” and he would always be left with the question of “what if”.

The other issue I have is how will this be tested for humans.  It appears the drug can affect animal and humans differently so even though the outcomes for the animals may have shown successful, how can we be sure that the drug will work the same way for humans.  

I can understand why some people would say it is inhumane to do this type of testing on animals or humans.  I can understand why some would be against the research as far as costing the company too much money if it is or is not unsuccessful. However, it is more important to save human lives than to do nothing at all.

If you know for a fact that the research could save lives you would do it. The company has to be willing to take risks. "No risks, No reward"