This was ambitious thinking. Practically speaking there is no professional group or industry that has ever sufficiently regulated itself; not the legal or the medical field, not the scientists or academicians, not the clergy, and definitely not the media (USA International Business Publications, 2009).
When the more blatant exploitations have been revealed and corrected, primary recognition should perhaps be partitioned among the media that widely broadcasted the condition, governmental workers who perform frequently questionable therapeutic actions, consumerist who used force or pressure, and affiliates of the industry itself who possessed the guts to confront their social responsibilities (Abraham & Lawton-Smith, 2003). Particularly, a few drug companies, for various rationales, have faced up to such responsibilities somewhat critically (Abraham & Lawton-Smith, 2003). The literature will illustrate that a limited number of companies, especially SmithKline, Syntex, UpJohn, and Merck Sharp & Dohme in the United States and, recently, Switzerland’s Ciba-Geigy, have infrequently been found culpable of making unproven claims or of dismissing the dangers of their products (Silverman et al., 1992). The most unforgettable statement came from a Syntex representative who once disclosed, “We have found that we can tell the truth and still make a decent profit” (Silverman & Lee, 1982: 150).
Nevertheless, by the end of the 1980s the state of affairs had altered dramatically. Increasingly, it was the international businesses which had found out that they may tell the truth and still generate profit (Chetley, 1990). Rather, it was the domestic or local companies, many with tremendous political power and influence, that were deceiving, swindling, and jeopardising the lives of other people (Chetley, 1990). For many in poor countries, this was a troubling finding.