I believe neither Merck nor Pfizer acted ethically or socially responsible during the Vioxx disaster. Evidence suggests that Merck might have knows about the harmful side effects of Vioxx and yet they hesitated for over 3 years to recall the drug. There was also an allegation that the company had manipulated and covered-up the results of the medical trials in their favor. An ethical thing to do would be to simultaneously recall the drug as well as inform the public about the dangers of using Vioxx. Instead Merck not only continued to produce and sell the drug, they had also spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year in marketing, partly to counteract any questions raised. According to The Wall Street Journal Merck’s “training document listed potential tough questions about Vioxx and said in capital letters, "DODGE!" , meaning that the company advised marketers to avoid direct answers on the health consequences of the drug. The article even mentions that many doctors and medical professors who raised questions about the safety of Vioxx were being pressured and intimidated by Merck. There is no doubt that all this behavior was deliberate and illegal. A company doing this kind of practices cannot call itself ethical.
After the Vioxx scandal, Pfizer - the producer of Celebrex and Bextra (drugs with a very similar chemical composition to Vioxx and its biggest competitors) was in a perfect spot to immediately recall it’s medicine from the market and therefore prove to the public that the company is more ethical and way more trustworthy compared to Merck, therefore gaining competitive advantage. Instead, Pfizer has stubbornly refused to take their drugs off the market. Pfizer had a lot to gain (financial and market share wise) from Vioxx’s troubles, with many patients expected to switch to Celebrex. In my opinion, this move was even more unethical than Merck’s. At this