Financial Conflicts of Interest are of Higher Ethical Priority than “Intellectual” Conflicts of Interest

Abstract

The primary claim of this paper is that intellectual conflicts of interest (COIs) exist but are of lower ethical priority than COIs flowing from relationships between health professionals and commercial industry characterized by financial exchange. The paper begins by defining intellectual COIs and framing them in the context of scholarship on non-financial COIs. However, the paper explains that the crucial distinction is not between financial and non-financial COIs but is rather between motivations for bias that flow from relationships and those that do not. While commitments to particular ideas or perspectives can cause all manner of cognitive bias, that fact does not justify denying the enormous power that relationships featuring pecuniary gain have on professional behaviour in term of care, policy, or both. Sufficient reason exists to take both intellectual COIs and financial COIs seriously, but this paper demonstrates why the latter is of higher ethical priority. Multiple reasons will be provided, but the primary rationale grounding the claim is that intellectual COIs may provide reasons to suspect cognitive bias but they do not typically involve a loss of trust in a social role. The same cannot be said for COIs flowing from relationships between health professionals and commercial industries involving financial exchange. The paper then assumes arguendo that the primary rationale is mistaken and proceeds to show why the claims that intellectual COIs are more significant than relationship-based COIs are dubious on their own merits. The final section of the paper summarizes and concludes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of course, simply establishing ethical obligations and priorities does not indicate which actors are primarily responsible for relevant action. This question merits its own independent analysis, which time and space here do not permit. Nevertheless, it is likely that a variety of actors bear responsibility for intervening on COIs, including but not limited to individual health professionals, health agencies and organizations, and policymakers.

  2. 2.

    Some non-financial COIs also have the ability to diminish trust in a social role (Lipworth et al. 2019); whether in so doing their level of ethical concern more closely resembles fCOIs or that of iCOIs is a question reserved for future work.

  3. 3.

    Admittedly, not all fCOIs are practically avoidable. As Brody notes,

    … [a]ll known ways of paying physicians create temptations to act in ways that fail to serve the patient’s health—fee-for-service rewards overtreatment whereas managed care capitation rewards undertreatment, for example. But we have discovered no way to deliver health care without paying physicians. (2010, 355)

    Given the analysis above, it is reasonable to claim that consistency demands that fCOIs that satisfy the unavoidability criterion should be deprioritized relative to those that are avoidable. While this is plausible, I would still maintain that a very large proportion of the relationships that providers and/or healthcare organizations maintain with commercial entities are practically avoidable.

  4. 4.

    I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

  5. 5.

    Note, of course, that the fact that iCOIs can generate ethical concern is entirely consistent with the claim that intellectual commitments are morally desirable as part of a virtue-based commitment to evidence-based practice. Many morally desirable acts and practices may not be unqualified goods; theorists of nonideal models of justice frequently emphasize the trade-offs that inevitably attend any effort to craft a just social order (Powers and Faden 2006; Venkatapuram 2011).

References

  1. Abdoul, H., C. Perrey, F. Tubach, P. Amiel, I. Durand-Zaleski, and C. Alberti. 2012. Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: A qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France. PLoS One 7(4): e35247.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Akl, E. A., P. El-Hachem, H. Abou-Haidar, I. Neumann, H. J. Schünemann, and G.H. Guyatt. 2014. Considering intellectual, in addition to financial, conflicts of interest proved important in a clinical practice guideline: a descriptive study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67(11): 1222–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bachynski, K., and D.S. Goldberg. 2018. Time out: NFL conflicts of interest with public health efforts to prevent TBI. BMJ Injury Prevention 24(3): 180–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bero, L.A., and Q. Grundy. 2016. Why having a (nonfinancial) interest is not a conflict of interest. PLoS biology 14(12).

  5. Brody, H. 2007. Hooked: Ethics, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical industry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brody, H. 2009. Lilly says jump, FDA says how high—More on “intellectual bias.” https://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2009/02/lilly-says-jump-fda-says-how-high-more.html. Accessed June 10, 2020.

  7. Brody, H. 2010. Professional medical organizations and commercial conflicts of interest: Ethical issues. The Annals of Family Medicine 8(4): 354–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cain, D.M., G. Loewenstein, and D.A. Moore. 2005. The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. The Journal of Legal Studies 34(1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cain, D. 2011. When sunlight fails to disinfect: Understanding the perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Consumer Research 37(5): 836–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Durbin, C.G., and R.P. Dellinger. 2008. When does a point of view become an intellectual conflict of interest? Critical Care Medicine 36(5): 1688–1689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Erde, E.L. 1996. Conflicts of interest in medicine: A philosophical and ethical morphology. In Conflicts of Interest in clinical practice and research, edited by R.G. Spece, D.S. Shimm, and A.E. Buchanan, 12–41. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldberg, D.S. 2019. The shadows of sunlight: Why disclosure should not be a priority in addressing conflicts of interest. Public Health Ethics 12(2): 202–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldberg, D.S. 2016. On physician–industry relationships and unreasonable standards of proof for harm: A population-level bioethics approach. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 26(2): 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grande, D., J.A. Shea, and K. Armstrong. 2012. Pharmaceutical industry gifts to physicians: Patient beliefs and trust in physicians and the health care system. Journal of General Internal Medicine 27(3): 274–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guyatt, G., E.A. Akl, J. Hirsh, et al. 2010. The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: A potential solution. Annals of Internal Medicine 152(11): 738–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hadland, S.E., M. Cerdá, Y. Li, M.S. Krieger, and B.D. Marshall. 2018. Association of pharmaceutical industry marketing of opioid products to physicians with subsequent opioid prescribing. JAMA Internal Medicine 178(6): 861–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hwong, A.R., S. Sah, and L.S. Lehmann. 2017. The effects of public disclosure of industry payments to physicians on patient trust: A randomized experiment. Journal of General Internal Medicine 32(11): 1186–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz, J. 2002. The silent world of doctor and patient. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kanter, G.P., D. Carpenter, L.S. Lehmann, and M.M. Mello. 2019. US nationwide disclosure to industry payments and public trust in physicians. JAMA network open 2(4): e191947-e191947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted the virtue of biomedical research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lipworth, W., N. Ghinea, and I. Kerridge. 2019. Clarifying the relationship between serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest. The American Journal of Bioethics 19(1): 48–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Markman, M. 2019. Intellectual conflicts of interest pose hidden dangers to scientific accuracy. OncologyLive 20(3). https://www.onclive.com/publications/oncology-live/2019/vol-20-no-3/intellectual-conflicts-of-interest-pose-hidden-dangers-to-scientific-accuracy. .

  23. Merriam-Webster. 2020. What is “whataboutism”? https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning. Accessed June 10, 2020.

  24. Pantell, M., D. Rehkopf, D. Jutte, S.L. Syme, J. Balmes, and N. Adler. 2013. Social isolation: A predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. American Journal of Public Health 103(11): 2056–2062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Perry, J.E., D. Cox, and A.D. Cox. 2014. Trust and transparency: Patient perceptions of physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42(4): 475-491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Powers, M., R.R. Faden, and R.R. Faden. 2006. Social justice: The moral foundations of public health and health policy. USA: Oxford University Press.

  27. Resnik, D.B. 2007. The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. Oxford University Press.

  28. Rodwin, M.A. 2018. Attempts to redefine conflicts of interest. Accountability in Research 25(2): 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sah, S., G. Loewenstein, and D. Cain. 2018. Insinuation anxiety: Concern that advice rejection will signal distrust after conflict of interest disclosures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 45(7): 1099–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schafer, A. 2008. Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(1): 8–24.

  31. Stark, A. 2003. Conflict of interest in American public life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Upshur, R.E. 2013. A call to integrate ethics and evidence-based medicine. AMA Journal of Ethics 15(1): 86–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Venkatapuram, S. 2013. Health justice: An argument from the capabilities approach. John Wiley & Sons.

  34. Wiersma, M., I. Kerridge, and W. Lipworth. 2018a. Dangers of neglecting non-financial conflicts of interest in health and medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 44(5): 319–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wiersma, M., I. Kerridge, W. Lipworth, and M. Rodwin. 2018b. Should we try to manage non-financial interests? BMJ 2018(361): k1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel S. Goldberg.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldberg, D.S. Financial Conflicts of Interest are of Higher Ethical Priority than “Intellectual” Conflicts of Interest. Bioethical Inquiry 17, 217–227 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-09989-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Conflicts of interest
  • Bioethics
  • Public health ethics
  • Financial
  • Interests