Beran Roy G
University of NSW, Australia.
Med Law. 2009 Sep;28(3):541-55.
The pharmaceutical industry is seen as seducing doctors by providing expensive gifts, subsidising travel and underwriting practice expenses in return for those doctors prescribing products that otherwise they would not use. This paints doctors in a very negative light; suggests doctors are available to the highest bidder; implies doctors do not adequately act as independent agents; and that doctors are driven more by self-interest than by patient needs. Similar practices, in other industries, are accepted as normal business behaviour but it is automatically assumed to be improper if the pharmaceutical industry supports doctors. Should the pharmaceutical industry withdraw educational grants then there would be: fewer scientific meetings; reduced attendance at conferences; limited post graduate education; and a depreciated level of maintenance of professional standards. To suggest that doctors prescribe inappropriately in return for largesse maligns their integrity but where there is no scientific reason to choose between different treatments then there can be little argument against selecting the product manufactured by a company that has invested in the doctor and the question arises as to whether this represents bad medicine? This paper will examine what constitutes non-professional conduct in response to inducements by the pharmaceutical industry. It will review: conflict of interest; relationships between doctors and pharma and the consequences for patients; and the need for critical appraisal before automatically decrying this relationship while accepting that there remain those who do not practice ethical medicine.
