Skip to main content
Log in

Social, cultural and ethical aspects of drug use—changes over 40 years: a personal look back

  • Special Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. In the UK the MHRA has accepted reports from patients since 2004. In the Netherlands, Denmark and in the USA this happened earlier, but little is known about how the agencies have used these reports.

  2. For a more in-depth discussion, see the 11 Oct 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal, vol. 327, no. 7419.

References

  1. Talalay P (ed) (1964) Drugs in our society. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore

  2. Proger S (ed) (1968) The medicated society. Collier-Macmillan, Toronto

  3. Bush P, Trakas D, Sanz E et al (eds) (1996) Children, medicines and culture. Haworth, Binghampton, NY

  4. Trakas D, Sanz E (eds) (1996) Childhood and medicine use in cross-cultural perspective: a European concerted action. DG XII Euro-Report EUR 16646EN. European Commission, Luxembourg

  5. Sanz E (1999) Pharmacological treatment for asthma: disease, diagnosis, drugs and patients. Int J Risk Saf Med 12:157–162

    Google Scholar 

  6. NHSS (2004) National healthyschool standarddrug education (including alcohol and tobacco). http://www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk/PDF/nhss_drug_education_2004.pdf. Accessed 7 Oct 2007

  7. Medawar C, Herxheimer A, Bell A, Jofre S (2002) Paroxetine, PANORAMA and user reporting of ADRs: consumer intelligence matters in clinical practice and post-marketing drug surveillance. Int J Risk Saf Med 15(4):161–169

    Google Scholar 

  8. Medawar C, Herxheimer A (2003/2004) A comparison of adverse drug reaction reports from professionals and users, relating to risk of dependence and suicidal behaviour with paroxetine. Int J Risk Saf Med 16:3–17

    Google Scholar 

  9. Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE (2007) Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects: implications for patient-targeted adverse effect surveillance. Drug Saf 30:669–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. International Society of Drug Bulletins (2007) http://www.isdbweb.org. Accessed 7 Oct 2007

  11. ISDB (2001) Declaration on therapeutic advance in the use of medicines. http://www.isdbweb/pag/documents/ISDB-decl-english.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2007

  12. Chalmers I, Altman DG (eds) (1995) Systematic reviews. BMJ, London

  13. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (eds) (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ, London

  14. The Cochrane Library (2007) http://thecochranelibrary.com. Accessed 7 Oct 2007

  15. Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A (2007) For the Cochrane adverse effects methods group. Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Waller PC, Wood SM, Langman MJS, Breckenridge AM, Rawlins MD (1992) Review of company postmarketing surveillance studies. BMJ 304:14142–14770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nieto A, Mazon A, Pamies R et al (2007) Adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids in funded and nonfunded studies. Arch Intern Med 167:2047–2053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Health Technology Assessment (2007) NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme. http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/. Accessed 11 Nov 2007

  19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2007) http://www.nice.org.uk. Accessed 10 Nov 2007

  20. INAHTA (2007) http://www.inahta.org. Accessed 10 Nov 2007

  21. Guidelines International Network (2007) http://www.g-i-n.net. Accessed 11 Nov 2007

  22. Mayor S (2006) Severe adverse reactions prompt call for trial design changes. BMJ 332:683

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rosenthal E (2006) Ill-fated U.K. drug trial bares testing loopholes. Herald Tribune, New York. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/30/news/pharma.php. Accessed 10 Nov 2007

  24. Laurence DR (2006) Research ethics committees and the law: indemnity and independence. Res Ethics Rev 2:140–143

    Google Scholar 

  25. Meador CK (1994) The last well person. N Engl J Med 330(6):440–441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Herxheimer A, Ziebland S (2004) The DIPEx project: collecting personal experiences of illness and health care. In: Hurwitz B, Greenhalgh T, Skultans V (eds) Narrative research in health and illness. BMJ Books, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shirkey HJ (1968) Pediatrics. 72(1):119–120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bohaychuck W, Ball G (2004) Conducting GCP complaint clinical research. Some of their findings are summarised in: Medawar C, Hardon A (eds) Medicines out of control? Aksant, Amsterdam, pp 166–169

  29. Illich I (1975) Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. Marion Boyars, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilio Sanz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herxheimer, A., Sanz, E. Social, cultural and ethical aspects of drug use—changes over 40 years: a personal look back. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 64, 107–114 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-007-0429-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-007-0429-7

Keywords

Navigation