Merck Vioxx Paper
In the year 2000, Merck produced a controversial product called Vioxx. Four years later it gained worldwide attention because of the drug’s potential cardiovascular risks. This was detrimental to the company’s reputation because it was alleged Merck knowingly distributed Vioxx despite its risk. Both Barbara Martinez and Anne W. Mathews of the Wall Street Journal wrote articles into the investigation of Vioxx. Their article suggests Merck knew the dangers of Vioxx at an early stage of its clinical trials.
This information is derived from Edward Scolnick’s email to colleagues, that “the cardiovascular events are clearly there” and called it a “shame. “He compared Vioxx to other drugs with known side effects and wrote, “there is always a hazard” (Martinez, Mathews, 2004). Further complications arose for Merck when Richard Horton from the Lance published an article about Merck’s marketing document labeled “Dodge Ball Vioxx” (Horton 2004). This document was intended for the company’s sales representatives which, discussed how to respond to questions about Vioxx.
In order to refute the arguments brought up by the Wall Street journalists and Richard Horton, Merck published their own Open Letters. In the Open Letters, Merck used three strategies to try and counter the negative press over its handling of Vioxx. Their persuasive strategies focused on the company’s good sense and knowledge, good moral character, and good will. Merck’s first strategy points to their good sense and knowledge of the medicine which serves to regain credibility and to establish the company as a professional organization.
In the rebuttal they specifically point out Vioxx was studied both before and after getting FDA approval. By taking this approach, the company attempts to build consumer confidence and show its knowledge of their product. In addition, Merck attempts to build integrity among its employees by pointing out their policies and formal training programs. Next, Merck attempts to prove the company’s good moral character and judgment. A two step approach is used in order to achieve this goal. First they try to demonstrate the company has nothing to hide and is open to reasonable talks about their products.
To strengthen this point they provide their clinical data on Vioxx. The second approach reminds people of Merck’s 100 years of service of doing things correctly. Together these steps attempts to dissolve public fear and reiterate their history of producing other life saving medicines (Gilmartin, 2004). In their final strategy, Merck attempts to show the company’s goodwill by pointing out their rigorous scientific involvement that led to the company’s voluntarily withdrawal of Vioxx.
The intentions here are to show the company’s concern and dedication for their patients and customers. By acknowledging this concern, Merck demonstrates that it wants the best for their patients. Each strategy had an intended purpose to reduce the negative press over the handling of Merck’s product. However, in my opinion only two out of the three strategies are truly effective while the other served as a contradiction to its purpose. For example, Merck’s second strategy at first look shows the company’s willingness to comply with any questions or concerns.
Yet a more in-depth look quickly changes this perspective when the company begins a counterattack against any doctor who disagrees with the information provided in the clinical study. Methods such as intimidation and threat of legal action are simultaneously used against any opposition. By exhibiting this behavior the company takes away from anything it attempts to achieve. To make matters worse the FDA on November 2, 2004, posted a report that warns Vioxx has not been fully evaluated by the FDA (Horton 2004).
Despite this report and the article by the Wall Street Journal and Richard Horton, Merck continued to admit no liability or wrongful conduct. They maintained their position and decided that settlement was the most appropriate way for the company to put this matter behind. This action reflected the unyielding attitude of Merck as a company. Work Cited Martinez, M. B. , Matthews, M. A. , 2004, Warning Signs: E-Mails Suggest Merck Knew Vioxx’s Dangers at Early Stage, Wall Street Journal,6. Horton, H. R. , 2004, Vioxx, the implosion of Merck, and aftershocks at the FDA, The Lance, Volume 364, 1995.
