How Drug’s Rebirth as Treatment for Cancer Fueled Price Rises

My comment is in regards to the case study New Protocol: How Drug’s Rebirth as Treatment for Cancer Fueled Price Rises. This is a perfect example of a company with a social responsibility conflict. On one hand they are acting in a socially responsible manner by making a drug that helps patients who are suffering. On the other hand they are taking advantage of society by charging a higher price simply because it has been determined that this medication can also be used as a cancer drug. From this prospective, they are managing for the stakeholder’s interest. It does not seem ethical to price gouge customers simply for the benefit of the stakeholders; especially when the cost to manufacture the product has not increased with the rate of the price increase.

This case is related to an article that I read in the New York Times. The article entitled “Cancer Drug Ruling Will Have Wide Impact”, which describes a company that has created a cancer drug that fights the cancer but does not prolong life. At this time, this drug is approved for the use in advanced stage colon and lung cancer. The drug’s benefits do not out weigh its effects and could potentially lower the bar for future drug approvals, if approved. Where is the social responsibility of this company? Why would they create a drug that fights the cancer but does not provide any benefit to the patient? It seems this company’s focus is skewed and perhaps geared towards the stakeholder, just as in our case study.

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/health/AP-Cancer-Treatment-FDA.html