Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Whistle Blowing: Vioxx. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
3 pages in length. Can the broken relationship between business ethics and public perception ever be mended? Will there ever come a time when business ethics are not governed by whistle blowers? While there can be no doubt how stakes are high when whistle blowing is involved, one might conclude that without it civilized society would cease to exist. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: LM1_TLCWhisBlow.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
315) - it can readily be surmised how the implications of wrongdoing are quite irrefutable. That the most basic of all business ethics are being cast aside in exchange
for personal gain clearly indicates how the few whistle blowers courageous enough to come forward are intent upon maintaining whatever shred of ethics remain within the given company. Gordon
Gekko, the ruthless, antagonizing business mogul in Hollywoods interpretation of Wall Street, represents the epitome of complete disregard for contemporary corporate ethics; his callous approach to business precludes any ability
to see beyond his overwhelming greed. As such, he instills within his underlings this same malevolence, a premise one might readily argue quite clearly mirrors the recent incident involving
Mercks Vioxx, particularly now that the drug is being reconsidered for reintroduction to the market pending FDA approval. Based upon the wholly incriminating "internal Merck e-mails and marketing materials as
well as interviews with outside scientists" (Mathews et al, 2004, p. A1), the companys credibility for, according to Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin, "putting patient safety first" (p. A1) has been
tainted beyond repair, no matter how carefully or responsibly Merck might approach its products re-entry into the market. Mathews et al (2004) note that amid growing danger signs, "Merck
fought a rearguard action for 4 1/2 years, clinging to a hope that somehow Vioxxs safety could be confirmed -- even though its research chief had already privately acknowledged its
risks" (p. A1). Why did those who knew of this serious side effect fail to blow the whistle? Or, perhaps the question should be posed in a different way:
Why would someone risk physical and emotional well being to blow the whistle? Certainly, there are whistle blowers who sustain detrimental consequences by exposing those committing the wrongdoing; however,
...