Management Ethics Report on Gsk

Management Ethics report on GSK

On the 26th of june 2001 the guardian printed an article on pharmaceutical companies, within that article was a statement. "The combined worth of the world's top five drug companies is twice the combined GNP of all sub-Saharan Africa...". This amount of power can lead to negative outcomes, which is why these companies need to analyse and test everything they do. In the case of GSK, a drug released linked to birth defects had a massive impact on the image and reputation of the company. This is why GSK spends so much time researching and developing products and can sometimes go over the line. What we class as "Unethical" they may refer to as a nessecatiy to ensure effectiveness. Animal testing is the main culprit when looking at most pharmaceutical companies, all major pharaceuticals did some sort of animal testing. In an interveiw with Mark Squire of Lilly pharmaceuticals he admitted to his company being involved in animals tests but ensured me that it was only done on those drugs which were life saving or beneficial to the human race. In a sort of utilitarianism veiw, the lives of thousands of people is worth a few hundred animals. He also stated that in the past some products would have been tested that were not crucial and a few possibly for cosmetic purposes only. This would all have been within the legal rights at the time however and at this point of time no cosmetic products are tested on animals and at the moment some drugs have to be tested on animals as they are saving lives and there is no other way. He did say that preliminary research is much thourgh now and that many more tests are done on non-living organisms.

acknowledges that it has a moral responsibility to ensure best practice in the humane treatment of laboratory animals." In spite of this, GSK's testing practices are often cruel, and the tests themselves completely unnecessary.

GSK's animal testing policy claims "Non-medical Consumer Healthcare products...are never tested on animals unless there is a specific demand for this from national governments." Yet, the Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in August 2000 listed SmithKline Beecham as a company that manufactured animal tested products. These were personal health care and household products that were not required by US law to be tested on animals. SmithKline Beeecham's animal testing policy at the time also stated that testing would only be carried out if required by law.

The main arguement from GSK over allegations of testing products on animals unethically was that it was benefiting others. However after more accusations cropped up over cosmetics being tested unethically GSK was forced to admit it was wrong and stopped. Now they ensure that they only test products on animals if it is needed to help others to lead better lives

...