Given the fact that Merck is spending corporate resources to manufacture and distribute Mestiza, the Merck Mexican Donation Program morally justifiable? Explain

                A fact related to Merck that he is spending corporate resources for the manufacturing and distribution. Mestiza for sure makes the Merck Mestiza program justifiable on the basis of morality. Merck is one of the largest companies in pharmaceuticals so this is a point that they have many of the customers already. Merck is the one who spelled out they're many of the core values so that people can see them easily, all this shows a lot of dignity by him. The company helped a lot through many ways by distributing free tablets among the people who suffer from a disease noncommercials and can’t afford to have medication for its treatment.

            This is a disease caused by a parasite when it enters into the body after the bite of the black fly. Its effects cause many of the skin allergies and can make a person blind forever. I think the action being done by Merck in distributing free tablets among patients is heroic. He knew that people wouldn’t be capable of buying the medicine of this disease, therefore, he manufactured its medicine and distributed among patients free of cost.

Question no: 02.

Would Friedman approve of the Merck Mestiza Donation Program? Explain.

             No, what I think is that Friedman would not approve of the Merck Mestiza Donation program. Friedman actually wants himself to get rid of Corporate Social Responsibility which is also called as CSR, this is a very good example of corporate social responsibility. Merck is going beyond and above what is actually required by simply offering some of the free medicine to the people who are being affected by a disease called as river blindness as well as elephantiasis. He for sure wouldn’t like this at all due to a reason he sees it as a handout and he doesn’t think that companies should go far beyond from what they need to. Merck has an excellent idea of providing this particular medicine for everyone out there because of the reason that many people who are being suffered from these diseases won’t be able to buy them due to their high price. Due to this action being taken by a company, it gives a good and valuable name because of the reason that people who can’t afford medicines can see that Merck is very caring about its customers and he worries about them, above all he wants best among everything for his customers. All this action can cause many of the customers to spread a word related to the business and they can even draw more customers for the company through all this.

Question no: 03.

Should the fact that Merck’s values are clearly stated in corporate publications that are widely available to investors make a difference to someone who accepts Friedman’s position? Explain?

             Yes, it may have an effect on the investors depending on the point of view they follow. Friedman in his own capacity might say no due to concern for profits and there is no legal obligation for the charity need but at the second glance Friedman might agree to it to avoid anti-Merck social sentiments if Merck did nothing. Positive PR may lead to some more profits from other sources.

Question no: 04.

Should the Merck Mestiza Donation Program serve as model for other pharmaceutical companies who are in a unique position to facilitate the eradication of other diseases in developing nations? Explain.

                 I think yes, Merck Mestiza Donation program serves as an act of model for many of the other pharmaceutical companies. They should not make money by making different medicines for different diseases. There won’t be any purpose for the manufacturing of such medicines until or unless people can’t afford them, I think that diseases can only be eradicated until or unless everyone takes proper medication and this can only be done by distributing tablets to the ones who can’t afford them like Merck.