Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

Beneficence through Principled Research for Patients

  • Chapter
Good Pharma

  • 141 Accesses

Abstract

Forty years ago, Phil Lee, the chancellor of a world-class medical university, joined Milton Silverman in describing the distorting effects of drug companies on the goal of medicine—to prevent, cure, or manage disease and serious risks.1 They followed up with books on how companies continued to sell drugs regarded as dangerous in rich countries to millions of hapless victims in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Silverman M, Lee PR. Pills, Profits, and Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Silverman M, Lee PR, Lydecker M. Prescriptions for Death: The Drugging of the Third World. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Silverman M. The Drugging of the Americas: How Multinational Drug Companies Say One Thing about Their Products to Physicians in the United States and Another Thing to Physicians in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braithwaite J. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Public Citizen Health Research Group. Rapidly Increasing Criminal and Civil Monetary Penalties Against the Pharmaceutical Industry: 1991–2010. Washington DC: Public Citizen Health Research Group; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moore T, Psaty B, Furberg C. Time to act on drug safety. JAMA. 1998; 279 (1571–1573)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moore T. Prescription for Disaster. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1998

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moore T. Deadly Medicine: Why Tens of Thousands of Heart Patients Died in America’s Worst Drug Disaster. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Angell M. The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It. New York: Random House; 2004

    Google Scholar 

  10. Relman A, Angell M. America’s other drug problem: how the drug industry distorts medicine and politics. The New Republic. 2002 (16 Dec) (4, 587): 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Healy D. Pharmageddon. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012

    Google Scholar 

  12. Petersen M. Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs. New York: Sarah Crichton/Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2008

    Google Scholar 

  13. Avorn J. Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. Rev. and updated, 1st Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goldacre B. Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm. London: Faber & Faber; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Light D, Lexchin J. Pharmaceutical R&D—What do we get for all that money? BMJ. 2012; 344: e4348.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Angell, Truth about Drug Companies; Healy, Pharmageddon; Healy D. Did regulators fail over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors? BMJ. 2006; 333: 92–95;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Avorn J. Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf; 2004

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brody H, Light DW. The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health. American Journal of Public Health. 2011; 101 (3): 399–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chen M-M, Landerfeld CS. Narrative review: The promotion of Gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006; 145 (4): 284–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sismondo S. Ghost management. PLoS Medicine. 2007; 4 (9): 1429–1433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib. JAMA. 2008; 299 (15): 1800–1812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2012; 344

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lexchin J. Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2011; 18 (2): 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow J. Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs. Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics. 2013; 41 (3): 590–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright E. Envisioning Real Utopias. New York: Verso; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kassirer JP. On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Bok D. Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003

    Google Scholar 

  28. Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, Blumenthal D, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. Journal of American Medical Association. 2006; 295: 429–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Brazil Chamber of Deputies. Brazil’s Patent Reform: Innovation Towards National Competitiveness. Brasilia: Brazil Documentation and Information Center; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Bioethical Ethics, Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Menzel P, Light DW. A conservative case for universal access to health care. The Hastings Center Report 2006; (July): 2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Waxman HA. The Marketing of Vioxx to Physicians. Washington DC: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform; 5 May 2005;

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mathews AW, Martinez B. Warning signs: e-mails suggest Merck knew Vioxx’s dangers at early stage. Wall Street Journal. 2004 (Nov 1): A1; FDA. FDA Advisory Committee Briefing Document, NDA 21–042, s007,VIOXX Gastrointestinal Safety. Washington DC: US Food and Drug Administration; 8 Feb 2001 (8 Feb); Therapeutics Initiative. COX-2 inhibitors update: do journal publications tell the full story? The Therapeutics Initiative. 2001 (Nov) 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Public Citizen Health Research Group, Rapidly Increasing Criminal; Gøtzsche P. Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Garattini S, Bertele V. How can we regulate medicines better? BMJ. 2007; 335: 803–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Garattini S, Bertele V. Non-inferiority trials are unethical because they disregard patients’ interests. Lancet. 2007; 370: 1875–1877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Light D, Lexchin J, Darrow J. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2013; 41 (3): 590–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Healy, Pharmageddon; Le Fanu J. The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine. London: Basic; 2002, Ch3.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jasanoff S. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005, 207.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Sismondo S. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies, 2nd Edition. London: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Knorr-Cetina KD. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  43. FDA. HFD-550, medical officer review, Vioxx (rofecoxib), NDA 21-042/052. Washington DC: US Food and Drug Administration 1999

    Google Scholar 

  44. Topol EJ. Failing the public health—rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine. (21 Oct) 2004; 351: 1707–1709; correspondence 2875–1778;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Krumholz H, et al. What have we learnt from Vioxx? BMJ. 2007; 334: 120–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bessen J, Meurer M. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureacrats and Lawyers Put Innovation at Risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2008

    Google Scholar 

  47. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science. 1998; 280 (5364): 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Light and Lexchin, Pharmaceutical R&D; Schondelmeyer S, Purvis L. Rx Price Watch Report. Washington DC: American Association of Retired Persons 2012

    Google Scholar 

  49. Apolone G, Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S. Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures. Br J Cancer. Sep 5 2005; 93 (5): 504–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S. Disappointing biotech. BMJ. Oct 15 2005; 331 (7521): 895–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Light DW. Basic Research Funds to Discover Important New Drugs: Who Contributes How Much? In: Burke MA, ed. Monitoring the Financial Flows for Health Research 2005: Behind the Global Numbers. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research; 2006: 27–43

    Google Scholar 

  52. Light DW, Warburton RN. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Journal of Health Economics. 2005; 24: 1030–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Light DW, Warburton RN. Demythologizing the high cost of pharmaceutical research. Biosocieties. 2011 (Win): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Light, Lexchin, and Darrow, Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals; Gagnon M-A. Corruption of pharmaceutical markets: addressing the misalignment of financial incentives and public policy reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2013; 41 (3).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Page I. Forward. In: Garattini S, Valzelli L, eds. Serotonin. Amsterdam, London: Elsevier; 1965: v–vi.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Colombo F, Shapiro S, Slone D, Tognoni G, eds. Epidemiological Evaluation of Drugs. Amsterdam/London: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Catholic Charities U.S.A. Code of Ethics. Alexandria, Virginia: Catholic Charities U.S.A.; 2007.47. Light D, ed. The Risks of Prescription Drugs. New York: Columbia University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Donald W. Light
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio F. Maturo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2015 Donald W. Light and Antonio F. Maturo

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Light, D.W., Maturo, A.F. (2015). Introduction. In: Good Pharma. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137374332_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation