Peppin J F
University of Wisconsin, Internal Medicine Residency Program, Marshfield Clinic/St. Joseph's Hospital, USA.
J Med Philos. 1996 Feb;21(1):83-99. doi: 10.1093/jmp/21.1.83.
Since their appearance in 1850, Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (PSR) interactions with physicians have engendered intense emotional responses. The controversy has continued unabated since that time. Arguments in favor of the moral impermissibility of the PSR-physician relationship can be divided into four general categories; (1) influence, (2) patients pay but they do not choose, (3) violation of principlism, and (4) the erosion of the patient-physician relationship. None of the arguments that have thus far been proposed against the moral permissibility of these interactions gives sufficient warrant to avoid them (or pursue them). It may be the case that PSR-physician interactions place the patient-physician relationship in jeopardy. This would constitute enough warrant, from a pragmatic perspective, to shun such relationships. However, no research supports this contention. A careful evaluation of the literature leaves one ambivalent at best.
自1850年医药销售代表(PSR)与医生的互动出现以来,这种互动引发了强烈的情绪反应。自那时起,争议就一直未减。支持PSR与医生关系在道德上不可接受的论点可分为四大类:(1)影响;(2)患者付费但无选择权;(3)违反原则主义;(4)医患关系的侵蚀。迄今为止,针对这些互动在道德上的可接受性所提出的论点,没有一个能提供足够的理由来避免(或推行)它们。PSR与医生的互动可能会危及医患关系。从务实的角度来看,这足以成为回避此类关系的理由。然而,没有研究支持这一观点。对相关文献的仔细评估最多只能让人感到矛盾。