A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE

Nandini Sharma was hired as the associate director of Medical Research at a major pharmaceutical company. The terms of Ms. Sharma's employment were not fixed by contract, and as a result she is considered to be an at-will employee. Two years later Ms. Sharma was promoted to Director of Medical Research Therapeutics, a section that studied non-reproductive drugs.

One of the company's research projects involved the development of loperamide-a liquid treatment for acute and chronic diarrhea to be used by infants, children, and older persons who were unable to take solid medication. The formula contained saccharin in an amount that was 44 times higher than that permitted (by the national regulator) in 12 ounces of an artificially sweetened soft drink. There are, however, no promulgated standards for the use of saccharin in drugs.

The research project team responsible for the development of loperamide unanimously agreed that because of the high saccharin content, the existing formula loperamide was unsuitable for distribution in the India (apparently the formula was already being distributed in other developing and undeveloped countries). The team estimated that the development of an alternative formula would take at least three months.

The pharmaceutical's management pressured the team to proceed with the existing formula, and the research project team finally agreed. Nandini Sharma maintained her opposition to the high-saccharin formula and indicated that the Hippocratic Oath prevented her from giving the formula to old people and children. Nandini Sharma was the only medical person on the team, and the grounds for her decisions was that saccharin was a possible carcinogen. Therefore Nandini Sharma was unable to participate in the clinical testing.

Upon learning that she was unwilling to participate in the clinical testing, the management removed her from the project and gave her a demotion. Her demotion was posted, and she was told that management considered her un-promotable. She was charged specifically with being irresponsible, lacking in good judgment, unproductive, and uncooperative with marketing. Nandini Sharma had never been criticized by supervisors before. Nandini Sharma resigned because she believed she was being punished for refusing to pursue a task she thought was unethical.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Was Nandini Sharma forced to resign, or did she resign voluntarily?

2. Should the pharmaceutical's management have the right to terminate Nandini Sharma if she refused to participate in the clinical testing?

3. Under the circumstances of her "resignation," should she have the right to sue for reinstatement to her position as Director of Medical Research Therapeutics?

4. If you were the judge in such a court case, how would you rule and on what grounds?