 |
| Courtesy of Google Images |
I had one of those Nescafe down the nostrils moments earlier. Snot accompanied the Nescafe as it projected down my left nostril, much of it spraying the screen of my laptop.
GSK, it appears, have been implementing ethics into the way they give incentives to sales staff by rolling out new sales training, performance review and bonus structure.
In an interview with HR Magazine, GSK's Dannii Portsmouth, (Pictured top of post) said, “We don’t think we've done anything inappropriate in the past, but we think the expectations of society have changed.”
(Insert laughter here)
Portsmouth is GSK's Director, HR Business Lead, UK & Ireland Pharmaceuticals - to suggest that; a) the company who employ her have done nothing inappropriate in the past and b) it's down to the expectations of society, is classic GSK spin.
Here we have a company spokesperson trying to put right many wrongs but she fails at the first hurdle with a statement of denial. "We don’t think we've done anything inappropriate in the past."
Really?
So, why plead guilty then?
One word: Incredulous!
GSK has agreed to plead guilty and pay $3 billion as part of this criminal and civil resolution.
GSK has agreed to plead guilty to three misdemeanor violations of the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act:
Regarding Paxil, GSK will plead guilty to distribution of a misbranded drug due to false and misleading labeling, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
Regarding Wellbutrin, GSK will plead guilty to distribution of a misbranded drug due to inadequate directions for use, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
Regarding Avandia, GSK will plead guilty to failure to report data to the FDA, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
So, nothing "inappropriate " huh, Dannii?
Oh, and what about the statement of apology to the Chinese government and its people?
You remember that, right Dannii?
The fine of $490m (£297m) after a court found your company guilty of bribery after having made an estimated $150m in illegal profits.
Still, nothing "inappropriate. "
What about the out-of-court settlements made to over 3,000 claimants who were addicted to your company's antidepressant, Seroxat?
Or the countless settlements made with mothers who, as a result of ingesting Seroxat during pregnancy, gave birth to children with birth defects or had to abort their foetuses because the chances of survival after birth were slim, to say the least. Case in point, Joanne Thomas from Pennsylvania. You, or rather your company, gave her the run-around, she lost her case against you, appealed, lost that too - then, miraculously your company settled with her after your law team messed up by not disclosing everything to her attorneys - naughty Glaxo - (see here and here)
Still, nothing "inappropriate. " - I mean, what's 800 or so kids being born with severe heart or cranial defects? Just part of the business, huh Dannii?
Don't even get me started on Study 329, Dannii!
I could go on and on to show you exactly where GSK have been inappropriate but what's the point?
Glaxo employees, Portsmouth included, have a knack of burying their heads in the sand when it comes to Glaxo's dark history - Maybe that's the only way they get to sleep at night, who knows?
First rule of ethics, admit to your inappropriateness then seek to make sure it doesn't happen again.
The expectations of society have always been the same, we expect you to be honest and truthful, we expect to live and not suffer at the hands of your drugs.
End of rant.
Dannii Portsmouth's musings can be read, in full, here.
Bob Fiddaman.
*Disclaimer*
This blog post was not sponsored or endorsed by Nescafe.
