You need to review my initial discussion post.

Explain in detail how your post is similar and different from his or her post. Provide at least one reference or clear evidence to support your position.

Post 1

The Saraban Oxley act of 2002 which is also the Public accounting reform was created to ensure that companies are held accountable. The bill, which contains eleven sections, was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals, like Enron I think this act was to be perceived to create an ethical work environment but in many cases it still does not. I guess from a regulatory stand point yes it is used to hold executives accountable for their actions. It is also used to ensure that people are using funds appropriately and representing the correct thing. The one thing that I say still creates a harsh environment is that there is not control over the executives wallets. You find that the executives are paid in 500,000 and above and the people that work for them regardless of their education and experience most often are given pennies.

It's sad that it takes major crisis to happen in order to get a reaction out of people are for them to want to make a change.

Post 2

The implementation of SOX most definitely supports and overseas ethical behavior throughout the businesses employees, management, making sure that everyone is held liable for their actions, Honesty in all actions that occur in finances, oversee employees and management actions throughout the day. Any unethical act committed by anyone on the team will be closely monitored with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This act was enacted in 2002 also known as (SOX) which keeps a close eye on employees from doing anything unethical, along with protecting anyone investing in the company from being ripped off or anything fraudulent going on. "The Sarbones-Oxley Act came into force in July 2002 and introduced major changes to the regulation of corporate governance and financial practice. It is named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley, who were its main architects, and it set a number of non-negotiable deadlines for compliance (Sarbanes-Oxley Act Summary and Introduction, 2003)." This act has protected companies from fraudulent and unethical acts from employees and management.

Any company that focuses on ethics and correct behavior is key in having a strong and honest company that investors and consumers can trust and rely on. Rules and regulations are mandatory in maintaining an ethical environment, because without these employees will be out of control. Not only that but with rules and regulations there is order, but without punishment for anyone that steps out of line, no one will listen. People are definitely the drivers of creating ethical cultures, because people are animals and without rules and law people will get out of hand. Without people reinforcing said rules, what is the point of putting them in place? People make the rules and people need to be the ones to press how important it is to follow the rules, because without others monitoring others actions and disciplining them correctly no one will know the difference between right and wrong.

Response Guidelines

Respond to the posts. In your response, explain your thoughts as they relate to his or her post.

Address the following in detail:

Do you think the punishment recommendation proposed is practical? Explain in detail.

How does your peer's answer compares or contrasts with your answer?

Post 1

I am in full support of the outcome of the case. Merck knowingly proceeded advertising a drug which they knew caused heart attacks and strokes if taken long enough. I was shocked to read that some of the people who won their cases against Merck have not yet received settlement.

Consumers can only go by what they are told in commercials or advertisements, as far as prescription drugs go. Merck should've had warnings on their ads for this drug but chose to leave them out. I do not feel the consumer had any responsibility whatsoever.

The FDA is responsible for the safety and well-being of the general public in terms of drugs, food, and everyday products people use. In one sense the FDA failed the people by not reporting the number of heart attacks cause by Vioxx. "Based on the number of Vioxx prescriptions written between 1999 and 2003, the study estimated that Vioxx may have contributed to more than 27,785 heart attacks or sudden cardiac arrests. This was initially published by the Wall Street Journal, but the results were never published by the FDA (Weiss, 2014).

I agree with the punishment but disagree that, at the time of the article, no payouts by Merck had been made. I realize Merck may want to appeal but the evidence against them seems overwhelming and the cases should've been resolved much quicker.

Misleading the public to purchase a drug that harms them is serious. I think an appropriate action would be a more severe punitive damage. It seems to be the only way to get to these multibillion dollar organizations that live and die by the dollar. Hit them where it hurts the most.

Post 2

I think that in the end Merck paid the consequences for avoiding early warning signs that their drug was causing side effects that could cost the lives of many. The company let pressure of getting the drug on the market to compete against Celebrex goes against the safety of their customers. Ultimately profits were what lead the company to continue to market the product even when studies were showing harmful side effects.

I think every consumer needs to take some responsibility for their actions. Consumers need to hold companies accountable and do proper research before taking a drug. This is not always and easy task and I feel that proper government policies have been put in place to product consumers. Not everyone has access to test drug products and we as consumers rely on these administrations to provide these tests for. But I do feel that consumers are able to do basic research and get information about products before using them and should not just blindly trust everything given to them. The FDA provides regulations for drugs that are sold within the United States. The agency tests products to insure they are safe for consumers and determine whether or not a product will make it to the market.

The companies have billions of dollars in damages related to cases from their drug Vioxx. The company ultimately did what was right by pulling the drug but not until things got too far and costs the lives of many customers. I think the company should be setting aside money to find better testing procedures and publications about their drugs in the future to prevent other cases from happening. There is always going to be a level of risk when it comes to drugs but companies should have policies in place to assure the safety of their customers and help them make educations choices when taking drugs.