A CASE IN POINT

Consider this case. You are the Vice-President of Public Affairs for a large, research-based pharmaceutical company. Your company has a new drug to treat arthritis that is ready to be brought to market. Rather than marketing it in their usual fashion through their pharmaceutical sales representatives to physicians, they have decided to take a more PR approach, touting the great benefits of this new drug; although, from what you know about this drug and its competitors , it seems to you that it isn't any real advance, just a slight difference in chemical composition with the same effects as most other similar drugs on the market. Your boss tells you to design a media campaign that focuses on the great strides that are being made in treating arthritis and how this new drug is playing a part. Is there anything ethically wrong with going ahead with the campaign as planned? Could it harm anyone ?

1. The facts: Arthritis is a debilitating chronic illness that affects millions of people worldwide; many of these sufferers are elderly, a vulnerable public if ever there was one. A new advance would be good for them. However, believing that this is a new advance when it isn't could be misleading. What has led to this proposed approach by your company is the level of competition in the marketplace and the need to position themselves in the minds of consumers as the best way to treat their condition. The proposed approach aims to take an end run around physicians and go directly to consumers. From a public relations perspective, this could prove to be problematic in the future relationship with this important public.

2. The values: Clearly, honesty and fairness are important here, as is loyalty. If you use the PRSA's values as a guide here, this value of loyalty is one of being faithful to the client/employer while at the same time honouring an obligation to the public interest. In this case, honesty and loyalty seem to conflict unless you consider your loyalty to the greater good.

3. The principles: There are several principles that could be useful here. If you adhere to the categorical imperative to be honest, then your path is clear. However, for many in this situation, it is a matter of what is likely to be of greater benefit to a greater number of people. If you go ahead with the campaign as planned, the good that will come will be primarily to the company and its investors. Will there be any good for the public? Not really, when you consider the harm it could do when the patients believe that they have been led to believe that this is the magic bullet they have been awaiting. In addition, there is no good here for the physicians who will have to prescribe this. Indeed, the approach could be construed as being disrespectful to them and could harm both them and your relationship with them in the long run.

4. The loyalties: Your loyalty to your employer is clear here: you should be doing whatever you can to maximize their profitability, but not at the expense of others. Indeed, other loyalties will not be served by this campaign either. If you consider your loyalty to your profession, clearly doing something that might reflect badly on it is unethical. Your loyalty to yourself is a bit more problematic. If you believe in honesty as a personal value, then your course is clear. However, if you value money more and you believe that if you do not do as you are asked you will lose your job, then your loyalty to yourself might suggest that you do something that you otherwise consider to be immoral. However, this is short-sighted. If you harm your reputation by behaving unethically in this situation when you know the right thing to do, the long- term ramifications for your career could be devastating, therefore showing considerable disloyalty to yourself.

Once you have analysed the problem in this way, your course of action should be clear. Just how you will implement the decision relies on your professional judgement.