Beran Roy G
Med Law. 2009 Sep;28(3):557-63.
Examining the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and medical profession the BMJ raised concern including: describing doctors as 'lapdogs to drug firms'; unethical recruiting in third world countries; manipulating codes of conduct; and medicine corrupted by industry largess. This paper offers an alternative perspective, questioning if largess is automatically contrary to societal needs. Serving on advisory boards allows critical input. Critics who denigrate those who accept support often have undisclosed conflicts of interest. These critics usually do not come from private practice and hence responsible for their own expenses and do not acknowledge costs faced by private practitioners when attending meetings. Private practice does not provide salary when not consulting, has no trust fund support and cannot amortise sponsorship as is often done in the public sector. Failure to disclose this represents concealed conflict of interest, amplified by the 'publish or perish' philosophy, which may well underwrite some publications.
在审视制药行业与医疗行业之间的关系时，《英国医学杂志》提出了诸多担忧，包括：将医生描述为“制药公司的哈巴狗”；在第三世界国家进行不道德的招募；操纵行为准则；以及医学被行业慷慨馈赠所腐蚀。本文提供了另一种观点，质疑慷慨馈赠是否必然与社会需求相悖。在咨询委员会任职能提供关键意见。诋毁接受支持之人的批评者往往存在未披露的利益冲突。这些批评者通常并非来自私人执业领域，因此无需自行承担费用，也不承认私人执业者参加会议时所面临的成本。私人执业在不坐诊时没有薪水，没有信托基金支持，也无法像公共部门通常那样摊销赞助费用。不披露这一点就构成了隐藏的利益冲突，而“要么发表论文要么面临淘汰”的理念更是加剧了这种冲突，这很可能为一些出版物提供了支持。
