Objective: Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession enhance the potential for physicians to become involved in conflicts of interest. Whether or not these rise to a level that violates standards of medical ethics depends on the degree to which they detract from the quality of health care and its cost, the objectivity of research, and the profession's integrity. This paper explores those issues from two perspectives – the micro-level of the medical profession and the macro-level of society.
Conclusions: Practices and policies that affect varied aspects of the interaction between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession – such as education, research and marketing – are discussed. The reader is asked to reflect on the ethics of issues raised; the author offers suggestions for mitigating conflicts of interest and, in turn, the potential for unethical medical care.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BodenheimerT. Uneasy alliance – clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New England Journal of Medicine2000; 342: 1539–1544.
2.
BlumenthalD. Doctors and drug companies. New England Journal of Medicine2004; 351: 1885–1890.
3.
RelmanASAngellM. America's other drug problem. The New Republic2002; 4: 3–41.
4.
KassirerJ: On the Take: How America's Complicity with Big Business can Endanger your Health. New York: Oxford Press, 2005.
5.
DyerA. Psychiatry as a profession. Psychiatric Ethics3rd edn, BlochSChodoffPGreenS. Oxford University Press, Oxford1999; 67–79.
6.
ThompsonDF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine1993; 329: 573–576.
7.
HodgesB. Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. Canadian Medical Association Journal1995; 153: 553–559.
8.
SandbergWSCarlosRSandbergEHRoizenMF. The effect of educational gifts from pharmaceutical firms on medical students’ recall of company names or products. Academic Medicine1997; 72: 916–918.
9.
WazanaA. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift?. Journal of the American Medical Association2000; 283: 373–380.
10.
DanaJLowensteinG. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. New England Journal of Medicine2003; 290: 252–255.
11.
SpingarnRBerlinJStromB. When pharmaceutical manufacturers’ employees present ground rounds, what do residents remember?. Academic Medicine1996; 71: 86–88.
12.
McCormickBBTomlilnsonGBrill-EdwardsPDetskyAS. Effects of restricting contact between pharmaceutical company representatives and internal medicine residents on post-training attitudes and behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association2001; 286: 1994–1999.
13.
RelmanAS. Separating continuing education from pharmaceutical marketing. Journal of the American Medical Association2001; 285: 2009–2012.
14.
VerganoD.Who's teaching the doctors?USA Today. 9 March 2000; D1.
15.
BerensonA.Drug files show maker promoted unapproved use. New York Times. 6 February 2007; A12.
16.
MoranM. Sharfstein challenges psychiatrists to help reform health system. Psychiatric News2005; 40(12)4.
17.
WazanaAPrimeauF. Ethical considerations in the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America2002; 25: 647–663.
18.
HalaszG. A symposium of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): an ethical perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry2002; 36: 472–475.
19.
BerensonA.Eli Lilly said to play down risk of top pill. New York Times. 17 December 2006; A1.
20.
KondroW. Drug company experts advised staff to withhold data about SSRI use in children. Canadian Medical Association Journal2004; 170: 783–785.
21.
LoBWolfLBerkeleyA. Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine2000; 343: 1616–1620.
22.
BlumenthalDGluckMLouisKSWiseD. Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science1986; 231: 242–246.
23.
BlumenthalDCausinoNCampbellELouisKS. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences: an industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine1996; 334: 368–373.
24.
BekelmanJELiYGrossCP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association2003; 289: 454–465.
25.
BlumenthalDCampbellEGCausinoNLouisKS. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine1996; 335: 1734–1739.
26.
PerlisRPerlisCWuYHwangCJosephMNierenbergA. Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry2005; 162: 1957–1960.
27.
BeroLARennieD. Influences on the quality of published drug studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care1996; 12: 209–237.
28.
MelanderHAhlqvist-RastadJMeijerGBeermannB. Evidence b(i)ased medicine – selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. British Medical Journal2003; 326(7400)1171–1178.
29.
AngellM. The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. Random House, New York2004.
30.
Congressional Budget OfficeResearch and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office Study, 2006.
31.
DiMasiJAHansenRWGrabowskiHG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics2003; 22: 151–185.
32.
CareyB.Little difference found in schizophrenia drugs. New York Times. 20 September 2005; A1.
33.
RawlsJ. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA1971.
34.
PearR.Drug companies increase spending in efforts to lobby congress and governments. New York Times. 1 June 2003; A33.
35.
The Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System. The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2006.
36.
AltmanD. The new Medicare prescription-drug legislation. New England Journal of Medicine2004; 350: 9–10.
37.
MintzesBBarerMLKravitzRL. How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DCTA. Canadian Medical Association Journal2003; 169(5)405–412.
38.
LiebermanJ. Comparative effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs: commentary. Archives of General Psychiatry2006; 63: 1069.
39.
VedantamS.In Antipsychotics, Newer Isn't Better. Washington Post. 3 January 2006; A1.
40.
RosackJ.Lilly to pay up to $500 million to settle claims. New York Times. 4 January 2007; A12.
41.
Anonymous. Paxil Dispute Settled. Washington Post. 29 March 2006; D2.
42.
Anonymous. Glaxo to Pay $70 Million to Settle Suits on Drug Prices. New York Times. 11 August 2006; A12.
43.
LavoieD. Schering-Plough agrees to plead guilty, pay fine. Washington Post. 30 August 2006; D3.
44.
GreenSBlochS. An Anthology of Psychiatric Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford2006.
45.
HundertEM. A model for ethical problem solving in medicine, with practical applications. American Journal Psychiatry1987; 144: 839–846.
46.
BlochSGreenS. An ethical framework for psychiatry. British Journal Psychiatry2006; 188: 7–12.
47.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Compliance Program for pharmaceutical Manufacturers. Federal Register 68, no. 86 (2003) 23731–23743.
48.
BrennanTRothmanDBlankL. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a proposal for academic medical centers. Journal of the American Medical Association2006; 295: 429–433.
49.
Anonymous. MDs Tutored to Say No to Drug Companies. Washington Post. 3 November 2006, A14.
50.
ArnoPDavisM. Why don't we enforce existing drug price controls?. Tulane Law Review2001; 75: 631–693.
51.
KaufmanMFormer FDA chief illegally held stocks. Washington Post. 17 October 2006, A19.
