Unethical Business Research Practice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Unethical Business Research Practice - Essay Example Unethical Business Research Practice The application of moral and ethical principles sin business is vital for organizational success. Background to the Trovan Case In 1996, Nigeria encountered an outbreak of Cerebral Spinal meningitis, the worst public health crisis that the country has ever faced (Edwards par 1). During the crisis, 1500 people succumbed to the disease. A number of non-governmental organizations including Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) reached out to the people in need faced (Gupta par 1). The organization treated well over 11500 infected individuals. A few weeks following the outbreak, Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, sent its employees to conduct clinical trials with its newly developed brand of antibiotics Trovafloxacin (Trovan ®). Pfizer’s intention seemingly was upright. It sought to provide Nigeria with a life saving, cheap, innovative and less painful antibiotic to counter the dreadful disease. The company stated that the medicine could effectively treat mening ococcal meningitis in adults and children. The company engaged a sample of the affected population in a study, featuring about 200 children (Gupta par 2). During the study 50% of the children sampled were treated with Trovafloxacin while the rest were treated with Ceftriaxon, the ‘best practice medication’. The study saw the death of 11 children, members of the study group. Several others suffered physical and mental disorders in the course of or after receiving treatment. What Unethical Research Behavior was involved? Pfizer in seeking to find a solution to the problem facing Nigeria, failed to observe crucial research requirements. For one, the organization did not pay attention to the issue of informed consent. The company involved a sample of children in the study without having their parents or guardians consent to their research activities. This for a fact goes against ethical standards when carrying out studies that involve children or people who are mentally ret arded. Who Were the Injured Parties? In the Trovan case, the injured persons were the children who were subjected to the clinical trials without parental (and guardian) consent. All the children who were included in the study, in this respect suffered injury although those who received the â€Å"best practice† medicine may not have suffered physically or mentally. Effects of the Unethical Behavior on the Organization, the Individual, and Society As previously noted, the Pfizer study resulted in the death of 11 children. Many other children suffered physical and mental disorders following the study. Parents and relatives to the children suffered great loss having lost their loved ones. Others possibly incurred more medical costs and suffered psychologically from the results of the study. Pfizer as a company on the other hand has suffered loss in respect of the litigation. The Nigerian government launched a suit against Pfizer claiming a total of seven billion US dollars (Edwar ds par 1). This amount is demanded in compensation for the victims and their relatives. The company is bound to lose a lot of cash after the case, pending in court to-date, is concluded. Yet again, the company’s reputation was negatively affected with many customers losing favour with the company. In fact, the drug has been banned in Europe and is restrictively used in North America. How Could the Unethical Behavior be Avoided or Resolved? The damage caused to the children and their relatives related mainly to lack of informed conse

Dual-Court System Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Dual-Court System - Research Paper Example State courts reserve the authority to hear criminal and civil cases related to state constitutional issues and laws (Neubaeur & Fradella, 2010). In various respects, the dual court system structure was designed to offer a certain degree of independence to local governments, and at the same time ensuring proper judicial checks and balance. Dividing-up administrative roles of justice and giving a number of responsibilities to the states is often regarded as both competent and a reflection of varied citizens’ diverse needs. Preserving an overarching federal system in the dual court system ensures that no single state legislates in excess of the standards required by the federal system (Neubaeur & Fradella, 2010). The constitution gives some supremacy to the federal government and set aside the rest for the states. State and federal governments both need their court system to interpret and apply the laws. The dual court system enables the two to spell out the control of their resp ective court systems. Court unification refers to the degree to which state and federal judicial systems in the United States establish one level of appellate and trial courts controlled from the top by a single individual or institution. The drive towards unification of the courts would not lead to a monolithic court system. This is for the reason that this would give the Federal court system excessive control while state legislative would make sound decisions on the matters concerning people’s needs and local affairs. The system is too complex and such a move will not result into a lasting solution. The state legislature performs better when making right decisions concerning local affairs (Cole &Smith, 2006). Further, courts are an important feature of the criminal justice system. It is logical to sustain separate systems inclusive of the court, corrections, and the police, locally at the state and federal levels depending on the circumstances. If there were solely one corr ectional organization and massive police force dealing with a monolithic court system, there will be minimal effectiveness (Cole & Clear, 2010). All criminal activity needs the presence of a judge and ruling after a person has been arrested. For this reason, it is far more effectual for each of the numerous locations in the entire nation to have a municipal court system. Judges have specified sentencing guidelines and philosophical rationales when presenting a judgment over presented facts. They include just deserts, that is, denunciation and retribution; incapacitation, restitution, rehabilitation, and deterrence (Rossi & Berk, 1997). If I were a judge, my sentencing goals and philosophical rationale would base on just deserts. This is for the reason that just deserts rationale imposes sentences and the amount of this sentence is established by the offense itself rather than any other reason, particularly not the offences to be made in future. Further, just deserts rationale and se ntencing goal simply justifies a sentence on the basis that wrongdoing deserves punishment that is equivalent to the wrongdoing. Basing on the fact, just deserts uses punishment for illegal behavior, the focus is on the offender himself; for the guilty alone, and only for the offence. I would choose on this approach because it covers both a retributive component if that