In 1979, Dr William Campbell, a research scientist working for Merck and Company, an American drug company, discovered evidence that one of the company's best-selling animal drugs, Ivermectin, might kill the parasite that causes river blindness. River blindness is an agonizing disease that afflicts some 18 million impoverished people living in remote villages along the banks of rivers in tropical regions of Africa and Latin America. The disease is caused by a tiny parasitic worm that is passed from person to person by the bite of the black fly, which breeds in river waters. Closer analysis indicated that Ivermectin might provide a low-cost, safe and simple cure for river blindness. Therefore, Campbell and his research team petitioned Merck's chairman, Dr Roy Vagelos, to allow them develop a human version of the drug, which up to then was only being used on animals. Merck managers, however, quickly realized that they had to make a decision basing on a few difficult choice alternatives: First, the medical research and large-scale clinical testing required to develop a version of the drug for humans could cost over

$100 million. It was unlikely the company could recover these costs or that a viable market could develop in the poverty-stricken regions where the disease was rampant; the victims of the disease were too poor to afford it. Moreover, even if the drug were affordable, it would be virtually impossible to distribute it because victims lived in remote areas and had no access to doctors, hospitals, clinics or commercial drug outlets. Second, some managers also pointed out that if the drug had adverse side effects when administered to humans, ensuing bad publicity might taint the drug and adversely affect sales of the animal version of the drug, which were about $300 million a year. The risk of harmful side effects was heightened by the possibility that incorrect use of the drug in underdeveloped nations could increase the potential for harm and bad publicity. Third, if a cheap version of the drug were made available, it might be smuggled to black markets and sold for use on animals, thereby undermining the company's lucrative sales of Ivermectin to veterinarians.

Much as Merck managers had good intentions of making a human version of the Ivermectin drug for the poverty-stricken victims of Africa and Latin America, its net income as a percent of sales was in decline due to the rapidly rising costs of developing new drugs, the increasingly restrictive and costly regulations being imposed by government agencies, a lull in basic scientific breakthroughs, and a decline in the productivity of company research programs. In the face of

these worsening conditions in the drug industry, Merck managers were reluctant to undertake expensive projects that showed little economic promise, such as the suggested development of a drug for river blindness. Yet without the human version of the drug,millions would be condemned to lives of intense suffering and partial total blindness.

After many discussions among Vagelos and his management team, they came to the conclusion that the potential human benefits of a drug for river blindness were too significant to ignore. In late 1980, Vagelos and his management team approved a budget that provided the sizable funding needed to develop a human version of Ivermectin. After 7 years of expensive research and numerous clinical trials, Merck succeeded in developing a human version of Ivermectin. A single pill of the new drug taken once a year would eradicate from the human body all traces of the parasite that caused river blindness and prevent new infections.

REQUIRED:

Basing yourself on the above case and your knowledge of Business Ethics:

a) Identify an ethical term that accurately explains the situation that faced Roy Vagelos when petitioned by the company research team to manufacture a human drug to treat river blindness and explain what you would have done when faced with a similar situation to overcome this situation.(18 Marks)

b) Using the most appropriate ethical theory and any other ethical concept you are familiar with, justify to Merck and Company Board of Directors, the decision to manufacture a human drug for treating river blindness.(10 Marks)

c) Evaluate the ethical practice of the private medical practitioners in Uganda and the neighbouring countries that are alleged to have taken advantage of COVID 19 pandemic to demand for collateral such as land titles from patients in critical conditions before treating them and in case these patients die before the medical bill is settled, they are alleged to have confiscated the dead bodies until relatives settle the medical bills.