The medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry:  when will we open our eyes?

Breen, Kerry J

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05994.x

Topics

There is evidence that drug-marketing techniques affect doctors’ prescribing practices. This has ethical implications for doctors, as it affects the trust required in the doctor–patient relationship. Doctors need to recognise they are affected by drug marketing, and take steps to maintain their independence from the pharmaceutical industry.

6/55 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC.

Correspondence:

Acknowledgements:

Valuable advice from Professor Bryan Campbell, Dr Sandra Hacker and Associate Professor Colin Thomson regarding drafts of this article is gratefully acknowledged.

Competing interests:

None identified.

1. Wager E. How to dance with porcupines: rules and guidelines on doctors’ relations with drug companies. BMJ 2003; 326: 1196-1198.
2. Herxheimer A. Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and patients’ organisations. BMJ 2003; 326: 1208-1210.
3. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbergovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-1170.
4. Moynihan R. Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 1: Entanglement. BMJ 2003; 326: 1189-1192.
5. Moynihan R. Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 2: Disentanglement. BMJ 2003; 326: 1193-1196.
6. Abbasi K, Smith R. No more free lunches [editorial]. BMJ 2003; 326: 1155-1156.
7. Martin TJ, Seeman E. Why there is no conflict of interest on drugs. The Age (Melbourne) 2003; December 23. Available at: www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/22/1071941669333.html (accessed Feb 2004).
8. Haikerwal M. Code sends wrong message. Aust Med 2003; December 1-15: 4.
9. McLean B. Drug gift influence denied. Aust Doctor 2002; February 15: 11.
10. Mansfield PR. Healthy Skepticism’s new AdWatch: understanding drug promotion Med J Aust 2003; 179: 644-645. <MJA full text>
11. Liberati A, Magrini N. Information from drug companies and opinion leaders [editorial]. BMJ 2003; 326: 1156-1157.
12. Collier J, Iheanacho I. The pharmaceutical industry as informant. Lancet 2002; 360: 1405-1409.
13. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beerman B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine — selective reporting by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003; 326: 1171-1173.
14. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 2000; 283: 373-380.
15. Watkins C, Moore L, Harvey I, et al. Characteristics of general practitioners who frequently see drug industry representatives: national cross sectional study. BMJ 2003; 326: 1178-1179.
16. Jureidini J, Mansfield P. Does drug promotion adversely influence doctors’ abilities to make the best decisions for patients? Australas Psychiatry 2001; 9: 95-99.
17. Moynihan R, Heath I, Henry D. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. BMJ 2002; 324: 886-890.
18. Moynihan R. US seniors group attacks pharmaceutical industry “fronts” [news]. BMJ 2003; 326: 351.
19. Vitry A. Is Australia free from direct-to-the consumer advertising? Aust Prescriber 2004; 27: 4-6.
20. Wynia MK, Latham SR, Kao AC, et al. Medical professionalism in society. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1612-1616.
21. Medicines Australia. Code of conduct edition 14. Canberra: Medicines Australia, 2002. Available at: www.medicinesaustralia.com.au/html/coc_full.asp (accessed Feb 2004).
22. Moynihan R. Drug company sponsorship could be replaced at a fraction of the cost [news]. BMJ 2003; 326: 1163.
23. Mayor S. World body reviews doctors links to drug industry [news]. BMJ 2003; 326: 1165.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.