Ethical Behaviors and Decision-Making using the Tylenol Case

Answer

Ethical Behaviors and Decision-Making using the Tylenol Case

Introduction

Tylenol’s management during the cyanide poisoning was highly effective as McNeil and Johnson & Johnson came forward and were honest about the impact of the cyanide poisoning. The company went ahead to recall the entire batch of Tylenol that was on sale at the time in order to repackage the drug in another form apart from the capsule packaging that could be tampered with. The repackaging of the Tylenol in the form of caplets was enough to regain the company public trust and restore its market share fully up to forty percent of the market for Tylenol. Johnson & Johnson acted in an ethical manner by withdrawing one of their best performing drugs from the market in order to remove the capsules from circulation (Lasher & Monseau, 2015). This highlighted the company’s credo of putting the customer first in all their dealings, which was a n extremely ethical position taken by the company as compared to the later troubles with Tylenol. The actions of the company in response to the cyanide poisoning scandal led the company to build enough public trust that was only later broken by the other issues that arose with Tylenol. The cyanide poisoning scandal built a lot of public trust in the company and allowed the company to operate with a degree of freedom for a long duration of time.

The response to later recalls

The company’s response to later recalls was less than ethical based on the numerous debacles that were encountered with the later recalls to the extent that one might say that the company rode on the coattails of its recall recognition from the 1987 poisoning for too long. The first issue that required a recall but nothing was done and no action was taken against McNeil and Johnson & Johnson was the revelation that a component in Tylenol led to liver failure and death of user. The only action taken was that the FDA reduced the accepted dosages for both adults and children. Tougher measures should have been taken against McNeil and its Tylenol

Drug, but nothing much was done because of the positive reputation that the company had built as well as the social capital that the company had accumulated after the capsule recall. The company only changed the language on its advertising regarding Tylenol for children because of the risk of liver failure in children (McCarthy, et al, 2014). The company also changed the advertising language on its ads for adult consumers based on the risk of liver failure in adult consumers as well as children consumers. Consumers who had sued the company because of experiencing liver failure were also unsuccessful against the company.

The goodwill accumulated by the company was able to get it through the crises of Tylenol and alcohol use as well as the numerous issues with infant Tylenol, but other issues were emerging where the goodwill was not enough to see the company through. The company did not lose market share throughout these initial issues, but the other arising issues would put the company in a tough position. The company had excessive pride and confidence in its systems that it did not see the deterioration of the quality of its drugs until major issues arose that demanded that the company recalls Tylenol (Jarrell, 2012). The first major issue involved errors in the quality control program involved in the manufacture of children’s Tylenol where the Tylenol contained too much metal debris in its containers. This sandal almost resulted in the company facing criminal charges for trying to cover up the issue of metal debris in its Tylenol and Motrin containers. The company had paid a subcontractor to go into stores and buy the Motrin from off the shelves as a way of recalling the Motrin without the necessary legal structure for such an activity. Despite customer complaints about the quality of Tylenol and other McNeil products, the company did not recall the drugs and this wrongdoing broke the patience that the FDA had exercised in regards to the quality control issues at McNeil.

An alternative course of action

The company could have pursued a different course of action by investigating the claims made by consumers of black particles in some of its products that were on the shelves. The company should have taken the initiative to recall the entire product range and fix the quality control issues that were present in most of its factory facilities. The company should have taken initiative to fix the issues at its factories once they had detected the presence of the debris in their products instead of engaging the FDA in a two-year battle on issues of quality control at its manufacturing facilities. The company had developed a case of hubris where it had excessive confidence in its production facilities such that it wanted to fight off claims about the quality of its medications as described by its customers (Felcher, 2003). However, if the company had no hubris it could have realized that its production facilities had deteriorated ever since the days of the cyanide recall and it would have taken measures to ensure that the production facilities were fixed. The company’s employees had become careless in the production processes such as to allow the production of metal debris in the containers of its medications, which had a negative impact on consumers.

The company should have lived up to its company credo of always putting the needs of consumers first by recalling the drugs that had debris in them as well as fixing its production processes. The company should have responded with immediate urgency to consumer complaints if having debris in the containers as well as consumer complaints of liver failure when using the medications. Individuals within the company chose to disregard consumer safety and continued selling the drugs within the mass market of over the counter drugs (Felcher, 2003). The alternative course of action should also have included the company collaborating with the FDA investigators in order to identify and fix the flaws within their production systems instead of fighting the FDA inspection of their production facilities by saying that everything was okay. The company employees had grown complacent in their duty to ensure the quality and safety of the drugs manufactured by McNeil such that customers were finding debris within their medications. The complacency of company employees at McNeil led to numerous deaths within a period of a few years from the use of alcohol as well as the company’s medications and other complications arising from liver failure. This should have been enough to bring the company executives to court and charging them with criminal charges.

Terrorism and the situation

The complacency of employees at McNeil and Johnson & Johnson led to the deaths of hundreds of people over duration of a few years from causes that could have been prevented if McNeil had acted in accordance with its company credo of always putting the consumer first. The actions of the company in covering up the failure of its quality control processes that led to numerous deaths could be construed as acts of terror because they were intentional. The company executives could be charged with intentional acts of terror on American soil based on their conduct and lack of candor in dealing with the situation. Business and society has evolved greatly in recent times such that any evidence of plans to kill Americans on American soil is equivalent to committing an act of terror on American soil (Jarrell, 2012). By conspiring to cover up the failure of its quality control systems and allowing its employees to mislead the FDA on the results of their drugs on patients, the company executives could have unknowingly committed acts of terror. The company executives committed criminal acts by misleading the FDA and hiding the negative effects of their medications as described by concerned customers who were using the company’s medications. The situation could have led to more deaths had the FDA not decided to investigate customer claims further and find out the company’s wrongdoing.

Evolution of business and society in relation to terrorism

Society and business has transformed greatly in the way terrorism threats are viewed and assessed with many wide ranging definitions of what constitutes a terrorism threat. A terrorism threat is viewed as any plot to take human life without regard to the actual consequences, which is the loss of human life. The executives at McNeil had little concern for the human lives that they endangered by not meeting the quality standards set by the FDA on the manufacture of medication (Hodgman & Garrard, 2012). The company and its executives should have put in more effort to ensure the safety of the drugs that they manufactured by paying more attention to the manufacturing processes at the facility in order to ensure that no metal debris got into the medications for children. The company should also have conducted further investigations into the claims that an overdose of Tylenol combined with alcohol led to numerous deaths in order to safeguard human life. The company did not do much investigation of the issue with the only measure taken being the posting of a warning on the drug packaging concerning the dangers associated with mixing Tylenol with alcohol intake. These actions of the company combined with the negligence and complacency of the company in regard to the effects of Tylenol could be interpreted as terrorist actions as they led to the loss of human lives that could have been avoided.

Conclusion

In summary, McNeil and Johnson & Johnsons started off on the right footing by recalling the Tylenol capsules from the shelves in 1987, but went off-track in the years that followed as evidenced by the missteps of future years. The managers of McNeil and Johnson & Johnson started acting unethically beginning with the problems associated with infant Tylenol and the effects of alcohol and Tylenol intake which lead to live failure and in some cases to death. The managers unethical behavior extended to the quality control issues that were reported in regard to the infant Tylenol and the metal debris discovered by customers inside the medication. The company’s actions could also be interpreted as terrorist threats given that the McNeil executives kept their drugs in the market despite knowing of the adverse effects that the drugs could have on human life. The fact that the drugs could cause death leads to the classification of their actions as terrorist actions because they knew that the drugs could lead to deaths yet they did not recall the medications from off the shelves. This shows that the tougher regulations imposed by governments as well as steeper punishments for unethical actions in the healthcare industry have done nothing to reduce the incidences of unethical behavior.