Whistle Blowing: Vioxx

When a situation requires someone to blow the whistle - which is completely separate from muckraking because whistle blowers have direct ties with the organizations and "disclose wrongdoing for moral reasons" (James, 1988, p. 315) - it can readily be surmised how the implications of wrongdoing are quite irrefutable. That the most basic of all business ethics are being cast aside in exchange for personal gain clearly indicates how the few whistle blowers courageous enough to come forward are intent upon maintaining whatever shred of ethics remain within the given company. Gordon Gekko, the ruthless, antagonizing business mogul in Hollywood's interpretation of Wall Street, represents the epitome of complete disregard for contemporary corporate ethics; his callous approach to business precludes any ability to see beyond his overwhelming greed. As such, he instills within his underlings this same malevolence, a premise one might readily argue quite clearly mirrors the recent incident involving Merck's Vioxx, particularly now that the drug is being reconsidered for reintroduction to the market pending FDA approval.

Based upon the wholly incriminating "internal Merck e-mails and marketing materials as well as interviews with outside scientists" (Mathews et al, 2004, p. A1), the company's credibility for, according to Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin, "putting patient safety first" (p. A1) has been tainted beyond repair, no matter how carefully or responsibly Merck might approach its product's re-entry into the market. Mathews et al (2004) note that amid growing danger signs, "Merck fought a rearguard action for 4 1/2 years, clinging to a hope that somehow Vioxx's safety could be confirmed -- even though its research chief had already privately acknowledged its risks" (p. A1).

Why did those who knew of this serious side effect fail to blow the whistle? Or, perhaps the question should be posed in a different way: Why would someone risk physical and emotional well being to blow the whistle? Certainly, there are whistle blowers who sustain detrimental consequences by exposing those committing the wrongdoing; however, the psychological implications of not speaking up are sometimes more unrelenting than the potential for harm (Glazer, 1988, p. 322). The still-fresh economic wounds of Merck's unethical behavior, and the whistle blowing that ultimately brought the company's moneymaking drug crashing down, help to illustrate why blowing the whistle on indisputably dishonest business practices is always the right thing to do.

The notion of ethics within the workplace environment has come under significant scrutiny of late, with the general consensus reflecting how ethical decision-making has fallen by the wayside in exchange for immediate gratification that almost always detrimentally impacts untold numbers of innocent people inadvertently caught up in the unscrupulous events. For some of those who know of these unethical goings-on, the ability to remain quiet becomes both mentally and emotionally troubling, inasmuch as they fear reprisals if they blow the whistle, as well as for the consequences such immoral actions stand to reap upon untold numbers of trusting workers, stakeholders and consumers.

The only way in which whistle blowing will ever fall out of fashion is if/when ethics gain a renewed presence within the business environment. Clearly, ethics, business and society must work in tandem or there is no purpose for any of its existence; unethical practices are what harbor ill will and create a climate of contempt and distrust, which is no way to participate in global commerce, particularly when one's product has the very real capability of threatening consumers' lives. Ethical fortitude, which represents "a necessary and critical ingredient in the successful enterprise" (Ruin, 1997), is not a difficult objective if one maintains a moral and conscientious outlook.