Ethics

4 Pages 932 Words

1- While reading the “Merck and River Blindness” case, I was able to identify three important facts about the case that I believe are vital in the decisions to be made. The first fact involves the 1978 World Health Organizations estimation that there are more then 300,000 people who are currently blind because of the effects of Onchocerciasis, and 18 million who were infected by the disease. I believe this figure to be the key because it sheds light on exactly how valuable a cure would be. It may not seem very valuable in an economic sense, but the ability to heal so many people and better their quality of life will be recognized by many. The next key fact is that it takes $200 million in research and 12 years time to bring the average drug to market. After reading this, it is not hard to see why the researching decision is such a vital and complex one. Having an organization devote so many resources to a cause, it should expect a significant return on their investment. Finally, the last key fact I read in the case was that the drug Ivermectin was found to kill parasites in horses that are very similar to the worm found to cause River Blindness in humans. I found this information crucial because the fact that they already had a fully developed, and marketed drug in Ivermectin as their base for the cure to Onchocerciasis, leads me to believe that the cost to research and market a cure would be dramatically less.
2- Assuming Merck does take on this assignment to develop a cure for Onchocerciasis, they will be setting themselves up for a big outcome. Whether the outcome is positive or negative is yet to be determined. Regardless of the outcome, I will identify and briefly discuss two potential costs, and two potential benefits. First, I will discuss two potential costs of going ahead with the investment. I think the clearest potential cost to Merck for attempting this project is the financial resources. Although they may have Ivermect...