CORE PROBLEM OF CASE

UNETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO BREAST-FEEDING

REGULATIONS

in India and in many other countries, aggressive marketing of 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 ‘infant 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:

distribution of free samples of infant milk foods and feeding bottles to

mothers;

advertising to public;

promotion in health care facilities;

distribution of gifts or samples to health workers;

promotion of words and pictures that idealize bottle feeding;

advice to mothers by company sales staff;

financial assistance to health organizations or associations of doctors to

organize conferences, seminars, and so on; and

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 representatives 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 ‘hire 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, casualization

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 practices 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 ‘Dexrice’ 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 ‘non-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 ‘Infant 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

‘freedom 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, “Creating value by understanding and communicating with its

customers and business partners”, and in vision ‘To be the most admired

Indian Health Care Group. This type of things are unexpected by a leading

global and distinguish company.