2. Discuss one point that you disagree with and why using a critical level of an

Question

2. Discuss one point that you disagree with and why using a critical level of analysis. on the following text.

I think the fact that the Vice-Chairman is engaged in misconduct might have an impact on the purchasing decisions of new consumers. When new consumers are looking for a product to choose, they take in consideration the company’s reliability and reputation along with customer satisfaction.

“Ohio filed suit against five drug companies, alleging they fueled the opioid addiction crisis by misrepresenting the addictive risks of their painkillers.” Once potential customers will find out about the case of these companies, the willing to buy medicine from them should significantly decrease, because these medicine might hurt them instead of healing. However, I think that many people who are looking for painkiller products and are not aware of the situation will still buy from these companies. Also, I think customers who used to buy from accused companies and did not face any problems before and might not have an opportunity to choose another company, will still purchase their products as well (but not painkillers though). As one company said "Janssen has acted appropriately, responsibly and in the best interests of patients regarding our opioid pain medications, which are FDA-approved and carry FDA-mandated warnings about the known risks of the medications on every product label." Such statements are trying to get costumers trust. From what I learned in Business Law class I can say that even though companies are trying to justify themselves, such actions against customers are totally unethical, and even illegal, and will definitely affect customers willing to purchase their products.

Explanation / Answer

After going through the given information and analyzing the information provided; one point that I disagree with is when it is mentioned that “the companies are trying to justify their actions of using opioid compounds in their painkillers as FDA-approved and they carry a mandatory warning about the known risks of the medications about it on every product label.” and author considers it illegal and unethical.

Reason:

I disagree with this statement because, if it was illegal, U.S. FDA would not have approved these painkillers to be sold in U.S. I have critically analyzed this case and determined that it not only the painkillers but the combined use of opioid medicines with benzodiazepines or other drugs that depress the central nervous system (CNS) and causes severe side effects. Therefore, it is the duty of health care professionals to prescribe such drugs in limit. Also, these drugs should be sold on authorized prescription only.

However, talking about ethics in the whole scienerio, I do agree that mere for earning profits, pharmaceuticals companies risks human life, just by mentioning warning on label, their act cannot be morally justified. It is their duty to supply the products that is in best interest of patients rather than risking their lives and making them addicts.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 2
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.