Stanford University medical researchers conducted a study on the correlation between the use of fertility drugs and ovarian cancer. Their study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, concludes that the use of the fertility drugs, Pergonal

and Serophene, may increase the risk of ovarian cancer by three times. The lead author of the studies, Professor Alice Whittemore, stated, "Our finding in regard to fertility drugs is by no means certain. It is based on very small numbers and is really very tenuous." FDA Commissioner David Kessler would like the infertility drug manufacturers to disclose the study findings and offer a warning on the drug packages. He notes, "Even though the epidemiology study is still preliminary, women have a right to know what is known. We're not looking to make more of this than there is." If you were a manufacturer of one of the drugs, would you voluntarily disclose the study information?

Given the history of asbestos, the breast implants, and other products covered in the text, it is not difficult to spot a similar pattern here. Although the law may not require disclosure, the ethical tests of balance and "how would you want to be treated?" point manufacturers in the direction of disclosure. Full market information requires that buyers make choices based on full disclosure. Without the study information, making those decisions becomes one-sided. The drug firm has more information that is not available to their purchasers. Further, the history of the cases mentioned demonstrates that firms are always better off financially if they make the disclosure and allow the market to function than if they withhold the information and must later defend product liability suits. The disclosure should be made not only from an ethical perspective but also from a financial and litigation perspective.