| Course | ETM-7500 Ethics for Managers |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Final project: ethical analysis of an issue in the news |
| Length | About 984 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ETM 7500 Module 5
Released Without Consent? Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers and an Ethical Analysis
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University
ETM-7500: Ethics for Managers
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Released Without Consent? Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers and an Ethical Analysis
The Issue
Purdue Pharma launched OxyContin, an extended-release form of oxycodone, in 1996. Its marketing campaign told physicians that the risk of addiction was very low and promoted the drug for a wide range of chronic pain, supported by a large sales force paid bonuses tied to sales (Van Zee, 2009). Prescriptions grew rapidly, and with them misuse, addiction and overdose deaths. In 2007 a Purdue affiliate pleaded guilty to misbranding the drug with intent to mislead, and in 2020 Purdue itself pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges related to its marketing.
Facing thousands of lawsuits from states, local governments and individuals, Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019. Its proposed plan included a contribution of several billion dollars from members of the Sackler family, who had withdrawn billions from the company over the preceding decade, in exchange for releases that would protect them from opioid lawsuits even by claimants who objected. In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (2024), the Supreme Court held, five to four, that the bankruptcy code does not authorize such releases of non-debtors without the claimants' consent. The ruling sent the parties back to negotiate.
Why It Is an Ethical Issue
Two ethical questions run through the case. The first concerns conduct: whether a company may market a product in ways that understate its dangers to increase sales. The second concerns accountability: whether owners who directed a company and took billions from it should be able to use the company's bankruptcy to end claims against themselves without the agreement of those harmed.
Framework 1: Utilitarianism
A utilitarian analysis of the marketing is straightforward: the benefits, revenue for Purdue and pain relief for some patients, are dwarfed by the harms of addiction and death across hundreds of thousands of families. The settlement question is harder. The release could be defended on utilitarian grounds, since it promised billions for treatment and abatement sooner than years of litigation might produce. Supporters of the plan made exactly this argument. Utilitarianism thus condemns the conduct but can support the release, because it weighs total outcomes and gives no special weight to the individual claimants who objected.
Framework 2: Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics asks whether actions respect people as ends. Misleading physicians about addiction risk used them, and through them patients, as means to sales, overriding their capacity to make informed decisions. On the release, a Kantian view sides with the objectors: forcing individuals to give up their claims against people who harmed them, without their consent, treats their rights as tradable for others' benefit. Kantian reasoning explains the Supreme Court majority's intuition better than utilitarianism does: consent matters in itself, not only for the results it produces.
Framework 3: Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder theory asks managers and owners to weigh the claims of everyone affected. Purdue's leadership put shareholders, in this case a single family, ahead of patients, physicians, communities and public payers, whose claims to safety and honest information were legitimate and direct. Byars and Stanberry (2018) note that stakeholder thinking requires firms to consider those who bear the risks of their products. Stakeholder theory explains the marketing failure well but, like utilitarianism, offers limited guidance on how to resolve competing claims in the settlement.
Evaluating the Frameworks
Kantian ethics is the most appropriate framework for the issue that made news in 2024, because the question was whether consent could be overridden, while utilitarian reasoning remains essential for grasping the scale of harm.
The release question also shows why frameworks should be weighed rather than counted. Two of the three can be read to support the release in some form, yet the strongest objection, that people cannot be stripped of their claims without consent, comes from the one framework that treats rights as more than inputs to a calculation. An analysis that simply tallied frameworks would miss the reason the Supreme Court's decision mattered to so many claimants.
| Framework | On the marketing | On the release | Fit for this case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilitarian | Condemns it: harms far exceed benefits | Can support it: faster, larger recovery | Strong on harms, weak on individual rights |
| Kantian | Condemns deception of physicians and patients | Rejects nonconsensual release | Best on the accountability question |
| Stakeholder | Condemns favoring owners over patients | Unclear how to rank claims | Strong on the marketing failure |
An Approach to Avoid Such Issues
1. Separate sales incentives from medical claims. Pharmaceutical companies should not pay sales staff bonuses tied to volume for drugs with abuse potential, and medical claims in marketing should be approved by medical staff independent of sales.
2. Monitor signals of misuse. Companies should track and act on data showing abnormal prescribing or diversion, rather than treating high-volume prescribers as their best customers.
3. Independent boards. A privately held company controlled by one family lacked independent directors who could challenge strategy; companies selling high-risk products should have independent board members with authority over safety and compliance.
4. Accountability that cannot be bought out. Policymakers should ensure that owners who direct a company's misconduct remain answerable for it, and that settlements involving them rest on victims' consent, as the Supreme Court required.
Conclusion
Purdue's story moved from a marketing campaign that understated a drug's dangers to a legal attempt to close the family's exposure without the agreement of those harmed. Utilitarian, Kantian and stakeholder reasoning all condemn the marketing; on the release, Kantian ethics best explains why consent mattered. Preventing a repeat requires changes in incentives, governance and accountability, not just larger settlements after the harm is done.
For managers outside the pharmaceutical industry, the case offers a warning about incentives that reward volume without regard to harm, and about governance that lets owners decide alone. The same pattern, a product whose risks fall on others and a pay system that ignores them, can appear in lending, social media or chemicals, and the remedies named here apply there as well.
References
Byars, S. M., & Stanberry, K. (2018). Business ethics. OpenStax.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024).
Van Zee, A. (2009). The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: Commercial triumph, public health tragedy. American Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 221-227. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.131714
Reading the ETM 7500 Module 5 assignment instructions
For a quarter of the grade, the project asks you to dissect a dilemma, weigh ethical approaches and build a strategy that would work in practice. Pick a current legal or ethical news issue, analyze its dilemma, judge carefully whether two or more course frameworks really fit and propose a way to prevent repeats in the future. It is completed in Module 5, The Future of Ethics. This sample analyzes a documented case using the Supreme Court decision and published research. Choose an issue with enough public reporting to analyze both the conduct and the response to it. Expect the final project to require at least two frameworks.
How this ETM 7500 Module 5 example is built
The project sets out the issue in two stages, the marketing and the bankruptcy release, with sources for each, then names the two ethical questions they raise. Three frameworks are applied to both questions, and each section ends by judging what the framework explains and where it falls short. A table compares the frameworks side by side and names the most appropriate one with a reason. Its four recommendations cover pay, oversight, governance and accountability, and the close links them to the framework evaluation. A closing paragraph carries the lessons beyond pharmaceuticals to other industries. The table compares how each framework treats the marketing and the release.
ETM 7500 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
ETM-7500's final project is graded on a rubric that weights framework evaluation heavily. The best projects pick a fresh, documented case, state its ethical questions plainly, test each framework for fit and end on prevention. At least two frameworks are required; showing where frameworks agree and where they diverge on the same facts demonstrates the judgment an MBA paper should show. Each recommendation should trace to a finding. Mentors also value an evaluation that weighs frameworks rather than counting them. Recommendations that address incentives, governance and accountability show practical judgment. Papers that evaluate whether a framework truly fits the case, rather than forcing every framework onto it, show the judgment the rubric rewards, and recommendations should name who acts and when.
ETM 7500 Module 5 help from the desk
Marks slip in this project when the news story is retold at length, when frameworks are applied without testing their fit or when the remedies stay vague. Choose an issue with reliable sources, including court decisions or official findings where they exist. Separate the distinct ethical questions the issue raises. Say, framework by framework, what the Southwest case confirms and what it leaves unexplained. Recommend specific changes in incentives, governance or law tied to the causes you found. A free first sample of your own ETM-7500 final project is available on request. Explain which framework fits best and why. Keep the account of the bankruptcy accurate and dated. Propose steps a company could actually adopt.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More ETM 7500 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- ETM 7500 Module 1: Written Assignment: A Controller, a Covenant and a Warranty Reserve
- ETM 7500 Module 2: Written Assignment: Enron's Culture and the Law That Followed
- ETM 7500 Module 3: Written Assignment: Data, Privacy and the Cambridge Analytica Case
- ETM 7500 Module 4: Written Assignment: Bribery Abroad and the Siemens Case
- FIN 7100 Module 4: Capital Structure Written Assignment
- HRM 7600 Module 3: Turnover Cost and Retention Plan
- SUS 7000 Module 3: Written Assignment: Engaging Clients, Workers and Neighbors in the Printer's Program
- NEG 7310 Module 4: Discussion: A Planning Grid for the Shop Lease Renewal
ETM 7500 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free ETM 7500 Module 5 sample paper?
The Purdue Pharma final project above analyzes OxyContin marketing and the Sackler bankruptcy release with utilitarian, Kantian and stakeholder frameworks and proposes reforms.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma?
In 2024 the Court held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize releasing non-debtors, such as the Sacklers, from claims without the claimants' consent.
Why is the Purdue Pharma case an ethics issue?
It raises questions about marketing a dangerous drug by understating its risks and about whether owners can escape accountability through a company's bankruptcy.
What is the ETM-7500 final project?
A 25 percent paper that takes a current news issue, tests two or more ethical frameworks on it and proposes how to prevent a repeat.
Which ethical framework best fits a consent question?
Kantian ethics, because it treats respecting people's choices as required in itself, not only as a means to good outcomes.