Merck on Vioxx: "We May Have Killed Thousands, But We're Still On Top"

Pharmaceutical company Merck has found itself in some hot water recently since its popular drug Vioxx has been linked to the heart attacks, strokes and deaths of several patients around the world. Merck has agreed to pay almost $5 billion to settle various lawsuits.

One such case is Carol Ernst, whose husband died after taking Vioxx, as featured in the New York Times article.

Merck stopped selling Vioxx in September 2004 following a clinical trial that showed that it raised the risks of heart attacks and strokes. Despite all these troubles, how is Merck somehow coming out on top? Merck's stock has risen 2.3 percent since the news has broke, which is pretty much unheard of.

Research: I'm sure that Merck conducted copious research on the Vioxx drug before it was released to the market, and surely before the FDA. It is the practice of all pharmaceutical companies to do so because, quite frankly, a mistake on their part can and will cost them someone's life. However, it is hard to do research on humans, for obvious reasons, and if research is conducted on animals certain problems that will only occur in humans will never be found. I'm not exactly sure what the solution to this dilemma is but perhaps the use of an animal that is genetically more similar to a human would be more practical. Also, is there a possibility that human cells can be tested using this drug? The smartest minds are at work on projects such as these and I feel there must be a more logical explanation to this.

Planning: There is also a great amount of planning that goes into the launch of a drug. A company like Merck has to plan all of its messages about the drug, including messages about crises such as these. Because of the regularity that these cases have, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies build their public relations plans to allow for the possibility of possible lawsuits and other such problems. In addition, Merck is also committed to keeping their litigations public, as you can read further here. This does show Merck's commitment to the litigation, even though a more proactive approach could have been much more effective.

Communication: Merck's communication in this case was mostly legal. The company made a strong commitment to legally fight every claim followed by a blanket settlement with several, if not all, of the lawsuits raised against them. This sets the standard for other cases of this nature because it is more beneficial for the company than settling individual cases. This is most likely a public relations tactic that was decided by Merck ahead of time in the event of something like this. In addition, it is hard to prove that Vioxx in itself has caused these deaths. Merck's clinical trials did not take into account other factors that may lead to death, such as smoking or alcohol abuse in concurrence with regular use of Vioxx.

Evaluation: One thing that I did not see at all in this case was evaluation. At the end of the article, it was clear that Merck believed the only thing that mattered was that they had not lost money in the end. We all know it is the duty of a public relations professional to create plans that keep both the company AND its publics in mind. I doubt death is one of the values that Merck's publics holds dear to its collective heart. If Merck was more concerned with evaluation, they could plan for more research to be conducted in order for these tragedies to be avoided from the beginning. Although this would decrease Merck's revenue because of the increased budget for research, in the end it would save lives. It is up to Merck to decide which is more important. In addition, this attitude has spread to other drugs, such as Avandia, which is featured here in this video clip.