In reply: We agree with Dietz that unbiased sources of information about new therapeutic options are increasing, and many are available electronically. Virtual Mentor, the American Medical Association’s ethics journal, has suggested reducing drug company influence on doctors’ prescribing by stopping companies paying for continuing medical education,1 and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is exposing this issue.

Fisher recommends full and frank disclosure of links with industry, but he does not state to whom these disclosures should be made. The revised Royal Australasian College of Physicians guidelines recommend that employing hospitals create a Conflict of Interest Committee to receive employees’ declarations, and to advise when a duality of interest may be construed as a conflict of interest.2 The Box shows the disclosure statement that one of us displays in his consulting room, copies of which are sent to referring doctors when letters are written about patients.

Grattan-Smith felt the title of our article was misleading. However, the title is stated as a question precisely because the assessment of professional behaviour, and particularly the assessment of possible conflicts of interest, is a matter of considerable dispute. It is clear that the relationships that doctors have with industry may constitute bad behaviour in the eyes of some, including the editorial writer in the Sydney Morning Herald.3 We do not, as Fisher suggests, contend that interaction with the pharmaceutical industry inevitably compromises prescribing decisions, but agree with him that full and frank disclosure, rather than the simple notification that a relationship exists, offers at least some reassurance that the possibility of influence is being acknowledged and managed.

Collins asserts both that we hinted that doctors who attend educational symposia organised by pharmaceutical companies and subsequently order the product are acting improperly, and that doctors attend such meetings for the free food and wine. We do not believe that either statement is correct, and accept that the choices that doctors make to attend such events are generally motivated not by gluttony, but by a range of complex factors, including a desire for education, clinical feedback and professional collegiality. Nothing in the interaction between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry is simple. Although the editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that avoidance is the simplest response to this dilemma, we would argue that such a complex issue requires a complex response and that support for adequate disclosure should be a necessary (but insufficient) component of the medical profession’s response, if it hopes to maintain the high regard in which it is held by the Australian public.