Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 541–553 | Cite as

Health Professionals “Make Their Choice”: Pharmaceutical Industry Leaders’ Understandings of Conflict of Interest

  • Quinn GrundyEmail author
  • Lisa Tierney
  • Christopher Mayes
  • Wendy Lipworth
Original Research

Abstract

Conflicts of interest, stemming from relationships between health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry, remain a highly divisive and inflammatory issue in healthcare. Given that most jurisdictions rely on industry to self-regulate with respect to its interactions with health professionals, it is surprising that little research has explored industry leaders’ understandings of conflicts of interest. Drawing from in-depth interviews with ten pharmaceutical industry leaders based in Australia, we explore the normalized and structural management of conflicts of interest within pharmaceutical companies. We contrast this with participants’ unanimous belief that the antidote to conflicts of interest with health professionals were “informed consumers.” It is, thus, unlikely that a self-regulatory approach will be successful in ensuring ethical interactions with health professionals. However, the pharmaceutical industry’s routine and accepted practices for disclosing and managing employees’ conflicts of interest could, paradoxically, serve as an excellent model for healthcare.

Keywords

Conflict of interest Pharmaceutical industry Disclosure Professionalism Neoliberalism 

References

  1. Al-Areefi, M.A., M. Hassali, and M. Ibrahim. 2012. A qualitative study exploring medical representatives’ views on current drug promotion techniques in Yemen. Journal of Medical Marketing 12(3): 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Hamdi, A.Y., M. Hassali, and M. Ibrahim. 2012. Impact of pharmaceutical promotion on healthcare professional’s practices and behaviour: views from general practitioners, medicine dispensers and medical representatives in Yemen. Journal of Medical Marketing 12(4): 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Medical Students Association (AMSA). 2014. PharmFree Scorecard 2014. http://amsascorecard.wpengine.com/executive-summary/. Accessed July 19, 2016.
  4. Benner, P. 1994. The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in studying health, illness, and caring practices. In Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness, edited by P. Benner, 99–127. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 1996. Appendix A. In Expertise in nursing practice: Caring, clinical judgment and ethics, edited by P. Benner, C. Tanner, and C. Chesla, 351–372. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Benner, P., C. Tanner, and C. Chesla. 2009. Expertise in nursing practice, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, E.G., S.R. Rao, C.M. DesRoches, et al. 2010. Physician professionalism and changes in physician-industry relationships from 2004 to 2009. Archives of Internal Medicine 170(20): 1820–1826.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Campsall, P., K. Colizza, S. Straus, and H.T. Stelfox. 2016. Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and the biomedical industry: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Medicine 13(5): e1002029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, G.K., K.A. Brykczynski, R.E. Malone, and P. Benner. 2010. Interpretive phenomenology in health care research. Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.Google Scholar
  10. Crigger, N., K. Barnes, A. Junko, S. Rahal, and C. Sheek. 2009. Nurse practitioners’ perceptions and participation in pharmaceutical marketing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 65(3): 525–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dana, J., and G. Loewenstein. 2003. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. Journal of the American Medical Association 290(2): 252–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. DeAngelis, C.D. 2000. Conflict of interest and the public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association 284(17): 2237–2238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn, A.G., E. Coiera, K.D. Mandl, and F.T. Bourgeois. 2016. Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1(1): 1–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Jutel, A., and D.B. Menkes. 2009. “But doctors do it …”: Nurses’ views of gifts and information from the pharmaceutical industry. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 43(6): 1057–1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Korenstein, D., S. Keyhani, and J.S. Ross. 2010. Physician attitudes toward industry: A view across the specialties. Archives of Surgery 145(6): 570–577.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Lave, R., P. Mirowski, and S. Randalls. 2010. Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science 40(5): 659–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lexchin, J. 1993. Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: What does the literature say? The Canadian Medical Association Journal 149(10): 1401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipworth, W., and M. Little. 2014. Deriving and critiquing an empirically-based framework for pharmaceutical ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics Empirical Bioethics 5(1): 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, E. 2006. Pharmaceutical virtue. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 30(2): 157–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McDermott Will & Emery. 2014. Snapshot of Sunshine rules in EU countries for the pharmaceutical industry. Chicago, IL: McDermott Will & Emery.Google Scholar
  21. Mirowski, P. 2009. Postface: Defining neoliberalism. In The road from Mont Pèlerin: The making of the neoliberal thought collective, edited by P. Mirowski, and D. Plehwe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pew Prescription Project. 2009. Addressing cost and quality: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Pennsylvania, PA: Pew Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA). 2009. Code on interactions with healthcare professionals. Washington, DC: PhRMA.Google Scholar
  24. QSR International Pty Ltd. 2012. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Relman, A.S. 1984. Dealing with conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine 310(18): 1182–1183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rodwin, M. 1993. Medicine, money, and morals: Physicians’ conflict of interest. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenbaum, L. 2015a. Beyond moral outrage—Weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. New England Journal of Medicine 372(21): 2064–2068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2015b. Reconnecting the dots—Reinterpreting industry–physician relations. New England Journal of Medicine 372(19): 1860–1864.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2015c. Understanding bias—The case for careful study. New England Journal of Medicine 372(20): 1959–1963.Google Scholar
  30. Steinbrook, R., J.P. Kassirer, and M. Angell. 2015. Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: A very bad idea. British Medical Journal 350: h2942.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tengilimoglu, D., A. Kisa, and A. Ekiyor. 2005. The pharmaceutical sales rep/physician relationship in Turkey: Ethical issues in an international context. Health Marketing Quarterly 22(1): 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson, D. 1993. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine 329(8): 573–576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quinn Grundy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lisa Tierney
    • 2
  • Christopher Mayes
    • 2
  • Wendy Lipworth
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Pharmacy, Charles Perkins CentreThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Sydney Health Ethics, School of Public HealthThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations