DiagnosticsCan The Relationship Between Doctors And Drug Companies Ever Be A Healthy One?
Should the financial ties between doctors and drug companies be completely
cut, or are healthy alliances between the two possible with the common aim
of improving human health? A debate in this week"s PLoS Medicine discusses
whether the influence of drug company money on doctors is always a
corrupting one.
The relationship between doctors and drug companies has been the subject
of intense scrutiny in recent years, with some commentators arguing that
the
public health mission of doctors is incompatible with the pharmaceutical
industry motive to maximize profits for shareholders. Emma D"Arcy - the
co-founder of www.myphid.com, an international networking site that allows
healthcare workers and the pharmaceutical industry to communicate in a
transparent way - disagrees that relationship is fundamentally
incompatible. She suggests that "authentic alliances" between doctors and
the
drug industry can be formed with the common aim of improving human health
and safe and effective medicines. Pointing out that the drug industry
remains an important of funding for scientific meetings and
continuing medical education, she outlines three ways in which healthy
collaboration can be encouraged without needing to further regulate the
industry. These include: teaching medical professionals to distinguish
between
clinical information and promotional material; ensuring transparency from
both parties through networking sites such as www.myphid.com; and
encouraging industry and doctors to follow an "everyday credo" to make
sure interactions ultimately benefit the care of people living with
disease
and further medical scientific understanding.
Ray Moynihan of the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia,
argues that transparency is not enough to ensure that physicians"
prescribing behaviour is not distorted by pharmaceutical influence. He
cites evidence collected on the site of the non-profit group Healthy
Skepticism
(http://www.healthyskepticism.org), including a systematic review demonstrating
that studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to
have
outcomes favouring their sponsor, and calls for the medical profession to
disentangle itself completely from the money it accepts from the
pharmaceutical industry. He highlights the case of pharmaceutical industry
distortion of continuing medical education, in particular the ability of
doctors to gain professional credits and company sponsored events. Giving
examples of education for doctors in Australia where sponsors have even
determined topics and speakers for seminars, he concludes that there
should be a complete ban on all industry funding of continuing medical
education,
whether direct or indirect. Complete disentanglement is a healthier
alternative, argues Moynihan, and strategies such as the American Medical
Student
Associations "PharmFree" campaign, which has advocated the severing of
financial ties, prefigure "a future where fewer doctors will be
prescribing under the influence of industry."
Funding:
ED received no specific funding to write this article. RM
received a commissioning fee from PLoS to write his Viewpoint.
Competing Interests:
Emma Darcy is the co-founder of http://www.myphid.com, an
international professional networking site for the pharmaceutical industry
and
the medical community. She has worked with many pharmaceutical companies,
medical societies, and medical education communication companies and is a
supporter of open and transparent interactions between all. Ray Moynihan
has declared that he has no competing interests.
Citation:
"Can the Relationship between Doctors and Drug Companies Ever Be a Healthy One?"
D"Arcy E, Moynihan R (2009)
PLoS Med 6(7): e1000075. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000075
PLoS Medicine