The current opioid epidemic in the U.S. sees approximately 49,000 people a year die of overdoses caused by opioids, including prescription painkillers, heroin and fentanyl. One of the main contributors to this is the prescription painkiller OxyContin. The billionaire Sackler family own Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical company who make the highly addictive painkiller OxyContin. They are currently facing hundreds of lawsuits by American states and individuals who are claiming that Purdue Pharma put ‘profits over people’ when they downplayed the addictive nature of OxyContin. The first charge of unethical behaviour is that the company claimed that large doses of the opioid could be administered without being addictive, as the drug was coated in a slow release outer shell. This meant that only 2 tablets needed to be taken in a 24-hour period. However, many people experienced severe withdrawal symptoms before a single 12-hour period was up. Additionally, it was found that the tablets could easily be ground down so that the slow release coating was erased. These factors resulted in addiction and deaths. Purdue Pharma claimed that the way the drug was taken was the responsibility of the individual rather than how they had manufactured it.
Can an organisation be described as successful if it is not ethical?
What can the organisation in your case study do to protect itself against unethical behaviour?