Integrated Perspective Studies
The case study of Merck/Vioxx case is highly significant in explaining in a practical view how causation and correlation arguments can affect and give impacts in legal claims. It is an indication of how ability or failure to understand the causality and correlation in an event or a case can impact defining a case (Pearl, 2010). This case can, therefore, be argued at different dimensions to define it in favour of or against the defendant.
In this case study and as pleaded guilty for, it is quite clear that Merck had committed an offense which is probably civil offense by introducing Vioxx to the market before it was approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This was a legal case which the defendant had to answer (Weiss, 2014). Secondly, as a pharmaceutical company entrusted with the production of medicines to be used by medical practitioners, Merck had violated their responsibilities of making good decisions in given medical attention to their patients. This was, therefore, a criminal offense between the medical practitioners and Merck (Weiss, 2014). This was due to the violation of Food and Drug Administration Act standards in releasing of medicines to the market.
On one side, it was unethical for Merck to have released a medicine which was not approved by the control department (Food and Drug Administration) which would later cause the increased medical problems to the public (Weiss, 2014). Secondly, it was unethical for Merck to advertise public a drug which was not approved by FDA and which would be used by the public (Pearl, 2010). Third, Merck had earlier provided false documents for the approval of Vioxx, which is by far unethical (providing false information). On the other side, it was unethical for FDA to fail for their part in not researching/ investigating on the drugs being sold in the market and their legality. It is so uncertain that Vioxx was sold to more than 25 million American and in so many countries we without their consent (Pearl, 2010).
Merck, a renowned pharmaceutical company, intended that the medicine would be used to cure Rheumatoid Arthritis, which as per the statistics is a common disorder in America. The intended effects, therefore, were curing and probably eliminating the disease in America (Weiss, 2014). However, though it was not clear whether it cured Rheumatoid Arthritis, Vioxx was said to produce other effects which included heart attacks, stroke and even death. Essentially, it is worth noting that Merck’s intention was solving a problem in the society through the Drug which was later and at one time approved by the FDA (Pozgar & Santucci, 2009). Its intended effect was to cure the people out of the disease. Unexpectedly though it brought more trouble than good to Merck and the society in large and hence the legal burden.
The judiciary hence placed the legal burdens to Merck. Firstly, the patients and their relatives filed cases against Merck for the damages caused to them. Secondly, the medical practitioners filed cases against Merck for interruption of their professionalism (Weiss, 2014). Third, the start filed criminal cases for the violation of the acts and the damage to the public (Hill & Jones, 2008). However, Merck would have avoided these cases among others through establishing and introducing the causation claims on his defence. In essence, there should have a clear correlation between the administration of the drug and the results of heart attacks, stroke and death as claimed by the medical practitioners, patients and their relatives (Pozgar & Santucci, 2009).
Firstly, the defendants' side would have claimed to establish the relationship between the diseases listed. This would have answered the question of how the disease is linked and establish the probability of someone with Rheumatoid Arthritis getting the heart attack, stroke or even dying (Pozgar & Santucci, 2009). More so, they would have established the effect of the combination of other medicines probably with themselves or with Vioxx. Secondly, the defendants would have sought to understand the correlation between the administration of Vioxx and heart attacks, stroke and even death. It was important to ensure that any case would show a close range relationship between the events of occurrence. If Vioxx led to heart attacks, stroke and death, would the lack of administration of Vioxx reduce the occurrence of the three effects and probably reduce the level of occurrence? This question answered would then prove that the frequency of occurrence was due to Vioxx through reverse causality. Lastly, ‘Post hoc, ergo proper hoc' would have been used to prove that the deadly side effects only occurred after the administration of the drug.
Through the above causal claims by the defendant (Merck), it may have probably proven that the side effects were not caused by Vioxx but may be the drugs later introduced were able to reduce the adverse effects of Rheumatoid Arthritis. This, therefore, would have saved Merck Company the many billions used to cater for the professional’s body, patients and their relatives in the various cases won (Hill & Jones, 2008).
References
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R. (2008). Strategic management: An integrated approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Pearl, J. (2010). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Pozgar, G. D., & Santucci, N. M. (2009). Student's case law resource' guide to accompany legal aspects' of health care administration', ninth edition. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.
Weiss, J. W. (2014). Business Ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach.
