Dil Unethical Issues Related to Breast
Content
CORE PROBLEM OF CASE
UNETHICAL
ISSUES
RELATED
TO
BREAST-FEEDING
REGULATIONS
in India and in many other countries, aggressive marketing o f breast milk substitutes by commercial interests triggered campaigns for promotion of commercial interests triggered campaigns for promotion of breast ±feeding. the promotion of breast milk substitutes by medical professionals challenged traditional breast feeding practices. The baby food industry very cleverly sought to promote its products through health-care facilities. in India , in wake of global developments with regard to the promotion of breast-feeding, the infant milk foods and feeding bottles bill was passed in the Lok Sabha in 1989. In 1992, the µinfant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) act¶ was finally passed. It came into force from 1 August 1993. The Act expressly prohibits:
y distribution of free samples of infant milk foods and feeding bottles to
mothers;
y advertising to public; y promotion in health care facilities;
y distribution of gifts or samples to health workers; y promotion of words and pictures that idealize bottle feeding; y advice to mothers by company sales staff; y financial assistance to health organizations or associations of doctors to
organize conferences, seminars, and so on; and
y Incentives to sales personnel/ retailers based on volume of sales.
And Indian govt. has authorized four voluntary organizations to monitor the Act. These are the Central Social Welfare Board, the Indian Council for
Child Welfare , the Association for Commerce for Consumers Action on Safety and Health .and Breast-feeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI).
However, Wockhardt ltd, in spite of the 1992 regulation went on to distribute free samples, according to the study conducted by UNICEFACASH. The study revealed that the incidence of free samples prevailed all over India- it was highest in the country¶s capital, New Delhi. Seventy two percent of the free samples were given by Nestle, twenty four percent Dalmia Dairy, 19% Wockhardt and 18% by Raptokos Brett,
VICTIMAZATION OF EMPLOYEES
ON 8 May 2003 more than 75000 medical repres entatives from all over India participated in a 50-day relay strike in Kerala under the aegis of the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India (FMRAI) protesting
against the unethical policies of pharmaceutical companies which (1) denied the fundamental trade union rights of the members; (2) pursued policies that treated sales promotion employees as vendible commodities and resorted to µhire and fire¶ and (3) increased the work-load on employees. However, it was found that Wockhardt Ltd has dismissed more than 77 medical representatives because of declining sales. it had also affected large number of transfers of sales promotion employees for the same reason. The Wockhardt management with a view to pre-empting the strike , issued an office order on 6 February 2003. It made it known that the management would not in any way have any truck with the FMRAI¶s call by an employee would be considered an undisciplined act and appropriate action would be taken against such employee.
LACK OF SECURITY OF SERVICE TO WORKERS
Wockhardt Ltd has been increasingly pressing the employees, particularly the field workers. On the one hand, field workers are being thrown out of regular employment with impunity while, on the other hand, casualizati on of field workers is on the rise, accompanied by low wages as well as poor working and service conditions.
UNETHICAL SALES PRACTICES
Apart from indulging in violation of basic trade union rights of employees, Wockhardt management also victimized the company¶s field workers, who had to face medical practitioners, traders and the general public, when the company resorted to several unethical trade practices . In this regard FMRAI wrote a letter to the company chairman and requested his personal attention in the matter of unfair sales and marketing pract ices indulged by the management . But the management resorted to derecognition of the union.
PROMOTING HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THROUGH IMPROPERLY LABELLED SAMPLES
Infant food samples should conform to labeling requirements and every infant food should comply with section 6 and rule 7 and 8 of the 1992 Act. However Wockhardt distributes free samples of µDexrice¶ to doctors promoting it as delicious weaning food with enriched vitamins. Even though free samples of infant foods are permitted by law, samples packs of Dexrice, an infant food from Wockhardt do not conform to labeling requirements.
HARASSING
COMPETITORS
IN
MATTERS
OF
CLINICAL TRIALS
A µnon-existent¶ NGO linked to a senior Wockhardt executive attempted to use the public interest litigation route in the Supreme Court to derail the launch of insulin by its rival, Biocon, and has focused the public¶s attention on the business of clinical trials.
ANALYSIS AND INFERENCES
After identifying the problem we analyzed that Wockhardt Ltd have involved itself in so many unethical practices. However they very well familiar with the µInfant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act¶, they distributed free samples. They should stop this. They have refused to recognize the employee association. They refused to accept the rights of employees for µfreedom of association¶. It is fundamental right of any one to make the association, union .
RECOMMENDATION
The Pharmaceutical Company should follow the rules regulation made by govt. they should follow the business ethics. And what they are promising to public stick on it. Company should follow Biotechnological, environmental, social
ethics. Here we have seen the difference between precepts and practices of Wockhardt Ltd. They should very clear in labeling, employee security, and social responsibility .
CONCLUSION
The above instances of unethical practices by one of India¶s leading pharmaceutical companies Wockhardt, reveals the divergence that exists between precepts and practices. Unethical companies tend to use code of business conduct and ethics as a mask to show a humane face to the outside world, while they adopt all kinds of unethical practices in their workplace.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Here Wockhardt putted public, govt. and consumers in dark. They have involved themselves in so many unethical businesses as like selling milk products as a substitute of breast milk, victimization of employees, lack of service security, unethical sales practices, promoting health care system through improperly labeled samples and harassing competitors in matters of clinical trials. Even though they have written in their business philosophy, ³Creating value by understanding and communicating with its customers and business partners´, and in vision µTo be the most admired Indian Health Care Group. This type of things are unexpected by a leading global and distinguish company.
UNETHICAL
ISSUES
RELATED
TO
BREAST-FEEDING
REGULATIONS
in India and in many other countries, aggressive marketing o f breast milk substitutes by commercial interests triggered campaigns for promotion of commercial interests triggered campaigns for promotion of breast ±feeding. the promotion of breast milk substitutes by medical professionals challenged traditional breast feeding practices. The baby food industry very cleverly sought to promote its products through health-care facilities. in India , in wake of global developments with regard to the promotion of breast-feeding, the infant milk foods and feeding bottles bill was passed in the Lok Sabha in 1989. In 1992, the µinfant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) act¶ was finally passed. It came into force from 1 August 1993. The Act expressly prohibits:
y distribution of free samples of infant milk foods and feeding bottles to
mothers;
y advertising to public; y promotion in health care facilities;
y distribution of gifts or samples to health workers; y promotion of words and pictures that idealize bottle feeding; y advice to mothers by company sales staff; y financial assistance to health organizations or associations of doctors to
organize conferences, seminars, and so on; and
y Incentives to sales personnel/ retailers based on volume of sales.
And Indian govt. has authorized four voluntary organizations to monitor the Act. These are the Central Social Welfare Board, the Indian Council for
Child Welfare , the Association for Commerce for Consumers Action on Safety and Health .and Breast-feeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI).
However, Wockhardt ltd, in spite of the 1992 regulation went on to distribute free samples, according to the study conducted by UNICEFACASH. The study revealed that the incidence of free samples prevailed all over India- it was highest in the country¶s capital, New Delhi. Seventy two percent of the free samples were given by Nestle, twenty four percent Dalmia Dairy, 19% Wockhardt and 18% by Raptokos Brett,
VICTIMAZATION OF EMPLOYEES
ON 8 May 2003 more than 75000 medical repres entatives from all over India participated in a 50-day relay strike in Kerala under the aegis of the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India (FMRAI) protesting
against the unethical policies of pharmaceutical companies which (1) denied the fundamental trade union rights of the members; (2) pursued policies that treated sales promotion employees as vendible commodities and resorted to µhire and fire¶ and (3) increased the work-load on employees. However, it was found that Wockhardt Ltd has dismissed more than 77 medical representatives because of declining sales. it had also affected large number of transfers of sales promotion employees for the same reason. The Wockhardt management with a view to pre-empting the strike , issued an office order on 6 February 2003. It made it known that the management would not in any way have any truck with the FMRAI¶s call by an employee would be considered an undisciplined act and appropriate action would be taken against such employee.
LACK OF SECURITY OF SERVICE TO WORKERS
Wockhardt Ltd has been increasingly pressing the employees, particularly the field workers. On the one hand, field workers are being thrown out of regular employment with impunity while, on the other hand, casualizati on of field workers is on the rise, accompanied by low wages as well as poor working and service conditions.
UNETHICAL SALES PRACTICES
Apart from indulging in violation of basic trade union rights of employees, Wockhardt management also victimized the company¶s field workers, who had to face medical practitioners, traders and the general public, when the company resorted to several unethical trade practices . In this regard FMRAI wrote a letter to the company chairman and requested his personal attention in the matter of unfair sales and marketing pract ices indulged by the management . But the management resorted to derecognition of the union.
PROMOTING HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THROUGH IMPROPERLY LABELLED SAMPLES
Infant food samples should conform to labeling requirements and every infant food should comply with section 6 and rule 7 and 8 of the 1992 Act. However Wockhardt distributes free samples of µDexrice¶ to doctors promoting it as delicious weaning food with enriched vitamins. Even though free samples of infant foods are permitted by law, samples packs of Dexrice, an infant food from Wockhardt do not conform to labeling requirements.
HARASSING
COMPETITORS
IN
MATTERS
OF
CLINICAL TRIALS
A µnon-existent¶ NGO linked to a senior Wockhardt executive attempted to use the public interest litigation route in the Supreme Court to derail the launch of insulin by its rival, Biocon, and has focused the public¶s attention on the business of clinical trials.
ANALYSIS AND INFERENCES
After identifying the problem we analyzed that Wockhardt Ltd have involved itself in so many unethical practices. However they very well familiar with the µInfant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act¶, they distributed free samples. They should stop this. They have refused to recognize the employee association. They refused to accept the rights of employees for µfreedom of association¶. It is fundamental right of any one to make the association, union .
RECOMMENDATION
The Pharmaceutical Company should follow the rules regulation made by govt. they should follow the business ethics. And what they are promising to public stick on it. Company should follow Biotechnological, environmental, social
ethics. Here we have seen the difference between precepts and practices of Wockhardt Ltd. They should very clear in labeling, employee security, and social responsibility .
CONCLUSION
The above instances of unethical practices by one of India¶s leading pharmaceutical companies Wockhardt, reveals the divergence that exists between precepts and practices. Unethical companies tend to use code of business conduct and ethics as a mask to show a humane face to the outside world, while they adopt all kinds of unethical practices in their workplace.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Here Wockhardt putted public, govt. and consumers in dark. They have involved themselves in so many unethical businesses as like selling milk products as a substitute of breast milk, victimization of employees, lack of service security, unethical sales practices, promoting health care system through improperly labeled samples and harassing competitors in matters of clinical trials. Even though they have written in their business philosophy, ³Creating value by understanding and communicating with its customers and business partners´, and in vision µTo be the most admired Indian Health Care Group. This type of things are unexpected by a leading global and distinguish company.
