The ethical dilemma exhibited by Pureco Corporation is whether to sell the harmful Newpen antibiotics abroad to recover the already invested amount. The dilemma came after the US Drug Administration has withdrawn the Pureco Newpen from the market claiming that it has harmful side effects to its consumers. As the Pureco manager, I have the obligation of maximizing the stakeholders’ welfare, and considering that the company had already invested quite a huge sum of money in the establishment and marketing of the Newpen antibiotics, it is prudent for me not to sell the drug in any of the markets. This is because it is not ethical and professionally right to harm individuals knowingly. It is also illegal and punishable by law if the decision to sell abroad is later disclosed by the relevant authorities in the respective countries (General Accounting Office 27). Indeed, the legal action can lead to the cancellation of the Pureco operational license based on the continued decision to harm the public knowingly.
Since all the countries have their food and drug administration body which undertakes a pre and post-marketing drug safety monitoring, Pureco Corporation might end up been sued for its decision. Such law pursuit can result to heavy penalties and fines payment which can further disorient the firm’s financial position. The action made by the Food and Drug Administration should be taken as a challenge to the Pureco corporation which should be positively welcomed as the interests of the general public should be key. The corporation should therefore major in upgrading its research and development program so as to ensure safe production. It is also important to consider that the nature of the pharmaceutical industry largely depends on the people’s goodwill in a given corporation.
A selfish decision aimed at recouping the invested amount might result in severe damage to the firm’s reputation thus affecting its current and future market. The decision to sell the harmful Newpen abroad will therefore greatly tarnish the corporation’s name. The move will also negatively impact the corporation’s US market as the consumers will withdraw their trust. If the company fails to stand up firm and accept the responsibility of the prevailing situation, negative repercussions may follow later. Pureco should therefore clear the prevailing market dilemma by promising the American people, quality production of drugs. Although the corporation might end up losing a considerable amount already invested in marketing the Newpen drugs, the company’s future will be safeguarded. The long-run effect of the Pureco decision not to sell the harmful antibiotics will be positive mainly because consumer loyalty and trust will be improved.
It is therefore prudent for Pureco Pharmaceutical to consider complete destruction of the Newpen antibiotics to safeguard the future of the company’s operations. A new antibiotic should be researched and introduced in the market using the Newpen brand name and packaging to utilize the already established market. This move will not only enhance the corporation’s growth but also improve and strengthen cultural and professional ethics in the industry. In effect, the professional ethics of common good, due diligence, and care will efficiently and effectively lead to the corporation’s growth (Smith & Churchill 30). The main objective of the pharmaceutical firm is to ensure the health safety of the consumers and the general public. The Pureco Corporation should follow the suit by destroying the harmful Newpen antibiotics. They should also invest heavily in research and development in order to ensure that a similar scenario does not occur in the future.
Works Cited
General Accounting Office. Food and Drug Administration: effect of user fees on drug approval times, withdrawals, and other agency activities: report to the chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. New York, DIANE Publishing. 2002. Web.
Smith, Harmon & Churchill, Larry. Professional ethics and primary care medicine: beyond dilemmas and decorum. New York, Duke University Press. 1986. Web.