|
|
|||||||||||
Education & training |
Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2QX, e-mail: c.a.vassilas{at}bham.ac.uk
Warwick University, Coventry
|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Ethical background |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Why should a doctor eating a sandwich given free by the representative of a company whose products they would regularly prescribe anyway involve any breach of the ethical principles outlined above? One way to approach this problem is to look at an extreme example of conflict of interest that most doctors would agree on, see what ethical principles are involved and then gradually work down a hierarchy of scenarios where the ethical issues are less clear.
| Box 1. The four ethical principles of Beauchamp and Childress
(2001)
|
|
|
Three scenarios showing conflict of interest |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Scenario 2
A related scenario would be that of a doctor receiving £10 000 in
cash from a pharmaceutical representative every year to attend an annual
educational event organised by a drug company with no strings
attached.
Scenario 3
Many doctors are flown abroad by drug companies to attend meetings. Some of
these are sponsored conferences that may launch a new product or present
research about one or more of the companys products. Others are high
profile international conferences not organised by the pharmaceutical firms
but guests will be encouraged to attend sponsored satellite
talks and perhaps visit the companys offices.
|
|
Ethical debate |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In Scenario 2, the arguments supporting this behaviour might be that the doctor is simply accepting money from the drug company to compensate him or her for their time in going to the educational event. There is no explicit agreement to prescribe and even if there were, the same arguments in support of Scenario 1 would apply. However, the sum of money involved is such that the perception of others would be that fidelity to the patient is compromised in exactly the same way as in the first scenario.
In Scenario 3, doctors may believe these events benefit them and their patients because they are educational and that the sponsorship enables them to attend talks that they would not otherwise be able to hear. Few trusts would fund doctors to go to international conferences, such as those held by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). However, as reported by Baird in this issue (pp. 161162) pharmaceutical companies have sponsored UK psychiatrists to attend the annual meeting of the APA for many years. Doctors may believe they are able to come to balanced decisions and that the events contribute to their continuing medical education.
Relationships between pharmaceutical companies and doctors in the UK are governed by a code of practice (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, 2001), which is reflected in the guideline on the website of our own College (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2003). This states that the level of hospitality provided at meetings must be appropriate and not out of proportion to the occasion and costs must not exceed that level which the recipients would normally adopt when paying for themselves. We would argue that the level of hospitality provided at international meetings in Scenario 3 does not comply with the spirit of these guidelines.
The association between the receipt of hospitality from a pharmaceutical company and the prescription of their drugs may not be as direct as in Scenarios 1 and 2. However, drugs may be prescribed for reasons other than best clinical indications. Doctors who attend courses sponsored by a particular company are more likely to preferentially prescribe that companys product after the event (Bowman & Pearle, 1988). Despite physicians believing that attending sponsored conferences has no effect on their prescribing, this is contradicted by the evidence (Orlowski & Wateska, 1992).
Doctors are influenced by many sources but they are expected to evaluate opinions and evidence and arrive at decisions that provide the best care for their patients. By attending sponsored events they are allowing drug companies to exert undue influence. Again, a failure of fidelity towards their patients arises and a breach of the ethical principles.
|
|
Hospitality |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Professionals, such as doctors, should agree to moral standards that oblige them to place the good of those they serve above their own self-interest (Pellegrino, 1983). We know that the public has concerns about psychiatrists relationships with pharmaceutical firms (Shooter, 2005). There is a view that routine acceptance of small gifts and hospitality will influence prescribing which may not benefit, and may even harm, patients (Mainous et al, 1995; Gibbons et al, 1998).
|
|
What is the way forward? |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Waud (1992) argued that drug companies should not subsidise education in any form, using as his guiding ethical principle the Hippocratic oath, In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients.
|
|
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
ASSOCIATION OF THE BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY (2001) ABPI Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry. www.abpi.org.uk/publications/pdfs/CodeOfPractice2001.pdf
BEAUCHAMP, T. L. & CHILDRESS, J. F. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BOWMAN, M. A. & PEARLE, D. L. (1988) Changes in drug prescribing patterns related to commercial company funding of continuing medical education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 8, 13 20.[Medline]
BURGERMEISTER, J. (2004) German prosecutors probe
again into bribes by drug companies. BMJ,
328, 1333.
CAMPBELL, A. V. (2003) The virtues (and vices) of the
four principles. Journal of Medical Ethics,
29, 292
296.
CIALDINI, R. B. (2001) The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 2, 76 81.
GIBBONS, R. V., FRANK, J. L., BLOUCH, D. L., et al (1998) A comparison of physiciansand patientsattitudes toward pharmaceutical industry gifts. Journal of General and Internal Medicine, 13, 151 154.
GREEN, S. A. & BLOCH, S. (2001) Working in a
flawed mental health care system: an ethical challenge. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1378
1383.
JANIS, I. L., KAYE, D. & KIRSCHNER, P. (1965) Facilitating effects of eating-while-readingon responsiveness to persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 181 186.[Medline]
LEXCHIN, J. (1993) Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: what does the literature say? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 149, 1401 1407.[Abstract]
MAINOUS, A. G., 3rd, HUESTON, W. J. & RICH, E. C. (1995) Patient perceptions of physician acceptance of gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. Archives of Family Medicine, 4, 335 339.[Abstract]
ORLOWSKI, J. P. & WATESKA, L. (1992) The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns. Theres no such thing as a free lunch. Chest, 102, 270 273.[Medline]
PELLEGRINO, E. D. (1983) What is a profession? Journal of Allied Health, 12, 168 176.[Medline]
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS (2003) Interim Guidance on the Raltionship Between Psychiatrists and Commercial Sponsors and the Sponsorship of College Activities. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/members/membership/sponsorship.htm
SHOOTER, M. (2005) Dancing with the Devil? A personal
view of psychiatrys relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.
Psychiatric Bulletin,
29, 81
83.
WATKINS, R. S. & KIMBERLY, J., Jr. (2004) What residents dont know about physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. Academic Medicine, 79, 432 437.[CrossRef][Medline]
WAUD, D. R. (1992) Pharmaceutical promotions - afreelunch? New England Journal of Medicine, 327, 351 353.[Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |