In this article, Johnson & Johnson states that they want to be paid for damages done by Merck & Co while Johnson & Johnson was trying to "dissolve a partnership for the anti-inflammatory drugs of Remicade and Simponi." However, Merck says that if they do pay the damages, the affects would "have a 'material adverse affect' on its financial position, liquidity and operational results."
The dispute will be heard later this month over a minimum of twelve business days. Three federal judges will listen to the case and then decide within twenty business days after the trial who wins the case. The winner of the case will get the ownership of Remicade, a drug that treats arthritis and gastrointestinal disorders.
The fight began last year when Johnson & Johnson was doing business with Schering-Plough who was then bought by Merck. Johnson & Johnson wanted to keep their terms of distribution of drugs but Merck would not agree.
Ethics play a very large part in this dispute. Is it ethical for Johnson & Johnson to dissolve their partnership? Or is it ethical for Merck to not allow the dissolve? Johnson & Johnson's Credo of Values states that it is their promise to put their customers first. I don't think they are doing this by trying to dissolve these medications that could help people. Yes, they may lose some money because of the drugs, but they will be sticking by their values. Also, Johnson & Johnson has a huge profit. How much could this one product affect them, assuming there is not a giant recall once it is out on the shelves? However, they also say that it is their responsibility to keep prices low and give their suppliers and distributers the opportunity to make a fair profit. If not dissolving the product means that prices rise and they lose profit, this is not the right thing to do.
It seems to me like Johnson & Johnson is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their position is complicated and unless we know the outcome of dissolving the drugs or not dissolving the drugs, we cannot judge whether Johnson & Johnson is making the ethical choice.
This is a prime example of a case in which a company must decide whether a poor reputation is counter balanced by a gain in profit. If Johnson and Johnson's Credo of Values considers consumer well-being, I believe that the company must maintain its partnership with Merk, otherwise, their public reputation will be damaged.
ReplyDeleteTo me it sounds like Remicade will still be available to consumers no matter who wins the case (please correct me if I read this wrong). With that being said, Johnson & Johnson should attempt to dissolve its affiliation with Merck. Seeing as John & Johnson is a business, their number one goal is to make a profit. If the medicine will still be available to customers and the company does not lose money, I say go ahead with the trial.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Conor when he says that Johnson & Johnson should maintain its partnership with Merck. Though it has had problems with Merck in the past, Johnson & Johnson needs to keep working with this company so its consumers can benefit. Johnson & Johnson is not losing money from this partnership and therefore needs to make their partnership with Merck work.
ReplyDelete