Panalba Case

Despite an $18 million dollar loss to the company, we as a group are in complete agreement that Upjohn must remove Panalba from the shelves and destroy it, immediately banning further use both in the U.S. and in foreign countries. The FDA has recommended such action after multiple studies have proven that deaths have resulted from the use of this fixed-ratio drug and that there are no benefits over the single use drugs already available in the marketplace.

Following are our reasons for this decision. First and foremost, it is imperative that the company upholds a reputation to the public as being socially responsible, both here in the U.S. and internationally. It is the ethical responsibility of Upjohn to look beyond making a profit and to place value on the lives of their customers. This decision is further supported in exploring Kant’s categorical imperatives as a guide to these actions. We would not be willing to allow those close to us to take this drug knowing the increased risk of death. Moreover, this action would benefit the company only at the expense of the customer. Allowing continued use of Panalba to any extent could further tarnish Upjohn’s reputation and impact sales of their other products over the long term. Negative publicity of the company should be avoided thus preserving Upjohn’s reputation as a company that cares about its consumers.

By ignoring the high death toll, Upjohn could face future lawsuits with legal compensation that would far exceed their initial financial loss. We must act in due care to protect the stockholder’s interest by limiting such costly lawsuits. To this end, we would be upholding our economic responsibility as proposed by Carroll. Furthermore, it is important that we focus on ethics relating to the use of Panalba since evidence has shown that ignoring such responsibilities lowers a company’s future sales growth and profits.

We recommend that Upjohn move forward and protect the stockholder’s interests by...