Though the Vioxx incident is one of the more major breaches of this implicit public contract, the issues of improper marketing -- especially in over-promoting a drug's efficacy and unethically downplaying a drug's risks -- are an industry-wide problem (OBM, 2005) for that reason, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies ought to adhere to the same standards as social marketing. Social marketing, which is generally not for a profit, is concerned only with public welfare, and thus faces slightly different ethical issues (Brenkert, 2002). Both commercial and social marketing are concerned with improving the well-being of the consumer, but in social marketing "the intended well-being of the people targeted is not simply an individual or subjective matter" (Brenkert, 2002). The same should be true of pharmaceutical marketing; though these companies must turn a profit, their main concern -- like the main concern for all other sectors and practitioners in healthcare -- should be the welfare of their patients.
A simple application of the utilitarian benefit...
One way of expressing the utilitarian theory of ethics is "never take any action that does not result in greater good than harm" for society (Hosmer, 1994). The effects of unethical marketing in most private sectors do not really violate this principle; most consumer products do little actual good or harm. When it comes to ostensibly life-saving or -improving medications, however, utilitarianism becomes hugely applicable. Using the principles of social marketing to uphold the social contract implied between pharmaceutical companies and their consumers will instantly result in more ethical marketing.
References
Brenkert, G. (2002). "Ethical challenges of social marketing." Journal of public policy and marketing, 21 (1), pp. 14-25
Hosmer, L. (1994). "Strategic planning as if ethics mattered." Strategic management journal, 15, pp. 17-34
OMB Watch. (2005). "House hearing reveals unethical marketing of Vioxx." Accessed 2…
