When Profit Trumps Progress
The rotavirus is a common virus that can cause inflammation of the stomach and intestines. However, it's consequences can be extreme, causing diarrhea, vomiting, fever, abdominal pain, and even dehydration and death. In fact, this virus is the cause of death for 200,000 children each year. In attempt to address this issue, the Vaccine Alliance, GAVI, made an agreement with the Merck, a pharmaceutical company, to provide the rotavirus vaccine to countries in West Africa at a discounted price.
This vaccine is extremely effective, and Merck was responsible for supplying the vaccine to millions of children. In 2018, Merck announced that it would be unable to meet it's commitment to supply this vaccine, and that they were going to pull out of the agreement completely by 2020.
The announcement comes right after the company received permission to sell the vaccine in China, where the vaccine can be priced higher. When faced with its obligation to help millions of children in West Africa or to meet the demand in China, the company chose the option with greater profit. While their actions are not wrong, as children in China are also being affected by the virus, it sets a bad precedent. The message that Merck's actions send is that it is okay to deny children in poorer countries access to vaccines.
This issue also creates a bigger problem, as there is no guarantee to whether or not the Vaccine Alliance and UNICEF will be able to find a way to get any rotavirus vaccine to the countries in West Africa.
First of all, the campaign to increase access to the rotavirus vaccine was one that worked because various pharmaceutical companies were working together to provide the vaccine. Suddenly taking away one of these companies creates a gap that other companies can not fill because they also have production restraints. GSK, another company involved with the Vaccine Alliance and UNICEF efforts, is one such company that does not have the ability to meet the increase in demand. The company's current production is only enough to support the current campaigns and will be unable to contribute if efforts expand.
Second, while there are a couple of different rotavirus vaccines, many of them have just been approved by the World Health Organization. This means that it will take several years before these vaccines can be widely used, as they need to go through a regulatory process, training for healthcare workers, and a complete shift for countries who were previously using a different vaccine. Even though the companies producing these vaccines are willing to allow the Vaccine Alliance to use these vaccines at a lower price, the reality is that million of children are at risk until they can be used.
While profit is important for any business, it is important to understand the repercussions of any action taken. In the case of Merck, what we see is that for the sake of profit, they are allowing millions of children to go unvaccinated. Their actions will have affects that expand beyond their company, and companies should take this into consideration. A solution is possible, it just requires both sides to come to agreement. For example, Merck can pull out of the agreement later once the other vaccines are available for use. Or, another agreement can be made that allows Merck to pledge less to countries in West Africa. Whatever the answer is, it is important to consider both sides and see what is best for everyone, not just the individual company.
Sources :
https://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/index.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/11/01/655844287/merck-pulls-out-of-agreement-to-supply-life-saving-vaccine-to-millions-of-kids
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/amid-china-launch-merck-cites-supply-limits-plan-to-scale-down-rotateq-shipments-africa
This vaccine is extremely effective, and Merck was responsible for supplying the vaccine to millions of children. In 2018, Merck announced that it would be unable to meet it's commitment to supply this vaccine, and that they were going to pull out of the agreement completely by 2020.
The announcement comes right after the company received permission to sell the vaccine in China, where the vaccine can be priced higher. When faced with its obligation to help millions of children in West Africa or to meet the demand in China, the company chose the option with greater profit. While their actions are not wrong, as children in China are also being affected by the virus, it sets a bad precedent. The message that Merck's actions send is that it is okay to deny children in poorer countries access to vaccines.
This issue also creates a bigger problem, as there is no guarantee to whether or not the Vaccine Alliance and UNICEF will be able to find a way to get any rotavirus vaccine to the countries in West Africa.
First of all, the campaign to increase access to the rotavirus vaccine was one that worked because various pharmaceutical companies were working together to provide the vaccine. Suddenly taking away one of these companies creates a gap that other companies can not fill because they also have production restraints. GSK, another company involved with the Vaccine Alliance and UNICEF efforts, is one such company that does not have the ability to meet the increase in demand. The company's current production is only enough to support the current campaigns and will be unable to contribute if efforts expand.
Second, while there are a couple of different rotavirus vaccines, many of them have just been approved by the World Health Organization. This means that it will take several years before these vaccines can be widely used, as they need to go through a regulatory process, training for healthcare workers, and a complete shift for countries who were previously using a different vaccine. Even though the companies producing these vaccines are willing to allow the Vaccine Alliance to use these vaccines at a lower price, the reality is that million of children are at risk until they can be used.
While profit is important for any business, it is important to understand the repercussions of any action taken. In the case of Merck, what we see is that for the sake of profit, they are allowing millions of children to go unvaccinated. Their actions will have affects that expand beyond their company, and companies should take this into consideration. A solution is possible, it just requires both sides to come to agreement. For example, Merck can pull out of the agreement later once the other vaccines are available for use. Or, another agreement can be made that allows Merck to pledge less to countries in West Africa. Whatever the answer is, it is important to consider both sides and see what is best for everyone, not just the individual company.
Sources :
https://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/index.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/11/01/655844287/merck-pulls-out-of-agreement-to-supply-life-saving-vaccine-to-millions-of-kids
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/amid-china-launch-merck-cites-supply-limits-plan-to-scale-down-rotateq-shipments-africa
Part of economics is its relationship to human behavior. While I agree and think that it is very important to consider what is best for everyone and not just an individual company; I do see the business side of things. A lot of these larger companies simply don't have the time of day and when it comes down to it it's all about the money and staying afloat in a competitive market where no company is ever really truly safe from falling. Obviously I'm not saying we shouldn't help people on both ends of the spectrum, I do think that Merck is certainly not the only company out there that has committed an immoral act and I think its important to be acknowledge the products we consume and any potential immoral acts they themselves have committed.
ReplyDelete