David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In 2003, the pharmaceutical company Biovail received a spate of negative publicity around a program for its heart medication Cardizem LA. For a three-month period Biovail paid US doctors US$1000 (and their office managers US$150) for patient data when at least 11 of their patients renewed a prescription to Cardizem. Doctors who signed up for the trial but who did not keep 11 patients on the drug received US$250 for participation. According to Biovail, this was a research trial, meeting US federal regulations for research trials – the consulting firm that had designed the trial had guaranteed that it would meet US criteria. The trial was expected to provide data that would help ‘in designing future clinical trial programs’, according to Biovail’s vice-president of finance. In addition, the results would eventually be published. However, the program was originally presented as a marketing campaign, and was being handled by Biovail’s sales department and sales force. According to ethicists who commented on the case, a US$1000 payment to doctors was unusually high for a post-marketing research trial, and a US$150 payment to office managers was thought to raise novel ethical conflicts. Cardizem is a drug intended for long-term use, so paying doctors to get patients started on a course of treatment could lead to substantial profits from these prescriptions. In line with this, immediate comments from professional ethicists and representatives of medical associations focused on questions about whether the Biovail campaign amounted to paying doctors to prescribe specific drugs. And that is a concern for the obvious reason that it has the potential to compromise doctors’ decisions about best care. Payments for prescriptions place doctors in ethically difficult situations: Peter Singer, a medical ethicist, says ‘There is clearly the potential for [physicians’] conflict of interest’ (Toronto Globe and Mail, 2003). Physicians’ decision-making is the most common locus of discussion in medical ethics..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
David Orentlicher (2005). Making Research a Requirement of Treatment: Why We Should Sometimes Let Doctors Pressure Patients to Participate in Research. Hastings Center Report 35 (5):20-28.
John K. Davis (2004). Conscientious Refusal and a Doctors's Right to Quit. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (1):75 – 91.
Sergio Sismondo, Pharmaceutical Company Funding and its Consequences: A Qualitative Systematic Review.
Kirsten Austad, David H. Brendel & Rebecca W. Brendel (2010). Financial Conflicts of Interest and the Ethical Obligations of Medical School Faculty and the Profession. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53 (4):534-544.
Barbara K. Redman, Thomas N. Templin & Jon F. Merz (2006). Research Misconduct Among Clinical Trial Staff. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):481-489.
Jacek Spławiński & Jerzy Kuźniar (2004). Clinical Trials: Active Control Vs Placebo — What is Ethical? Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):73-79.
Eugene J. Stein (1980). Doctors and Patients: Partners or Adversaries? [REVIEW] Bioethics Quarterly 2 (2):118-122.
Jerome P. Kassirer (2005). On the Take: How America's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. Oxford University Press.
Laurence J. Hirsch (2002). Conflicts of Interest in Drug Development: The Practices of Merck & Co., Inc. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):429-442.
Marc A. Rodwin (1993). Medicine, Money, and Morals: Physicians' Conflicts of Interest. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #136,109 of 1,004,644 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,004,644 )
How can I increase my downloads?