Associate Professional Staff member in the Department of Bioethics at the Cleveland Clinic; an Assistant Professor at Case Western Reserve University; and a Lab Fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.
J Law Med Ethics. 2013 Fall;41(3):680-7. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12078.
Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) advocate for increased research funding and policy changes and provide services to patients and their families. Given their credibility and political clout, PAOs are often successful in changing policies, increasing research funding, and increasing public awareness of medical conditions and the problems of their constituents. In order to advance their missions, PAOs accept funding, frequently from pharmaceutical firms. Industry funding can help PAOs advance their goals but can also create conflicts of interest (COI). Research indicates that bias may occur, even among well-meaning professionals, when people and organizations have financial COI. Industry funding may therefore influence PAOs to act in ways that favor the interests of their donors, which may increase the risk of harm to patients. This article extends the analysis developed in the Institute of Medicine report, Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, and applies the analysis to understand PAOs and their relationships with industry. It argues that the preferred goal of institutional COI policies should not be to promote trust, but to promote trustworthiness and appropriately placed trust.
患者倡导组织(PAO)倡导增加研究资金和政策改革,并为患者及其家属提供服务。鉴于他们的公信力和政治影响力,PAO 经常成功地改变政策、增加研究资金,并提高公众对医疗状况和患者问题的认识。为了推进其使命,PAO 接受资金,通常来自制药公司。行业资金可以帮助 PAO 实现其目标,但也会产生利益冲突(COI)。研究表明,即使是善意的专业人士,当个人和组织存在财务 COI 时,也可能会出现偏见。因此,行业资金可能会影响 PAO 采取有利于捐赠者利益的行动,这可能会增加患者受到伤害的风险。本文扩展了医学研究所报告《医学研究、教育和实践中的利益冲突》中所进行的分析,并应用该分析来理解 PAO 及其与行业的关系。本文认为,机构 COI 政策的首选目标不应该是促进信任,而是促进值得信赖和适当的信任。