This book offers a novel critique of public-private partnerships in public health. The author argues these relationships create webs of influence that undermine the integrity of public health agencies, and imperil public health. He makes a compelling case that the paradigm interaction between governments and corporations should be at arm's length: separation, not collaboration.

There is overwhelming evidence that the opioid crisis—which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (and counting)—has been created or exacerbated by webs of influence woven by several pharmaceutical companies. These webs involve health professionals, patient advocacy groups, medical professional societies, research universities, teaching hospitals, public health agencies, policymakers, and legislators. Opioid companies built these webs as part of corporate strategies of influence that were designed to expand the opioid market from cancer patients to larger groups (...) of patients with acute or chronic pain, to increase dosage as well as opioid use, to downplay the risks of addiction and abuse, and to characterize physicians’ concerns about the addiction and abuse risks as “opiophobia.” In the face of these pervasive strategies, conflict of interest policies have proven insufficient for addressing corporate influence in medical practice, medical research, and public health policy. Governments, the academy, and civil society need to develop counterstrategies to insulate themselves from corporate influence and to preserve their integrity and public trust. These strategies require a paradigm shift—from partnerships with the private sector, which are ordinarily vehicles for corporate influence, to a norm of separation. (shrink)

During times of crisis, institutions tend to focus on maintaining or restoring public trust, as well as on measures to insulate themselves (and their leadership) from potential legal liability. This is because institutions reflexively turn to lawyers, risk managers, crisis consultants, and public relations firms that focus on what they euphemistically call the “optics.” In this essay, I highlight the vital importance of addressing underlying reasons for an institution's loss of public trust—in particular, the loss (or erosion) of its integrity (...) and trustworthiness. Loss of public trust generates one kind of crisis—which I term “opsis.” But there is another kind of institutional crisis that so often remains unrecognized. Just as medical sepsis in the human body is a critical condition that endangers life, the loss of an institution's integrity and trustworthiness constitutes a type of sepsis—ethical sepsis—that poses an existential threat to the institution if unaddressed. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 70-72.

“What’s the big deal?”The meaning of this interrogative depends on the inflection. From the mouths of proponents of public–private partnerships (PPPs) related to food and health, it asks—perhaps with some skepticism or bewilderment—what objections there could possibly be to public–private partnerships intended to address some of our most pressing public health challenges. This is due, in no small part, to the way such partnerships are often characterized by participants and proponents alike: they are a “win–win–win,” for the public sector actor, (...) for the private sector actor, and for the general public or relevant publics (often characterized as consumers).1 Posed by critics of PPPs, the question cynically .. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 103-106.

These are not the words of a harsh critic of the Food and Drug Administration. They were penned by the agency’s deputy commissioner for food. That this is an insider’s view makes it all the more troubling. Recent studies suggest that roughly half the products on supermarket shelves proclaim their purported health benefits.2 But a trip to the supermarket suggests that this is a conservative estimate. The FDA is not powerless to regulate these claims, but it operates in a regulatory (...) framework that is the product of piecemeal reform and compromise, not intelligent design. And its limited staff resources and budget further constrain what it can do. The food industry is required to seek prior .. (shrink)

We tend to think of conflict as bad and compromise as good. But how should we view conflict that exposes potential threats to the environment and health? And what about a compromise between litigants that may adversely affect the interests of third parties or undermine public health? There can be few places in the country where this issue has become more pressing than in my home state, Pennsylvania. The hydraulic fracturing of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale has transformed lives (...) and landscapes here, mainly in rural communities with low‐income populations. The Hallowich family is a case in point. (shrink)

Nell Toussaint is not well. In recent years, she has been diagnosed with uterine fibroids, uncontrolled hypertension, nephrotic syndrome, poorly controlled diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and a pulmonary embolism. She also suffers from decreased mobility, shortness of breath, and‐perhaps not surprisingly, given her other ailments‐anxiety. Toussaint is an indigent undocumented immigrant living in Canada who has been trying to secure medical coverage in the federal courts. In the process, she has sacrificed the medical confidentiality that most of us ordinarily enjoy. Toussaint first (...) came to Canada from Grenada as a visitor in 1999 and remained after the term of her visa expired. At first, she earned enough to sustain a living, but in 2006, her health began to deteriorate, and she was no longer able to work. Although she has received some medical care since then, it has been sporadic, on an emergency basis, and at great expense. When Toussaint applied for medical health coverage under Canada's Interim Medical Health Program, which covers the cost of emergency medical care for legally admitted indigents, her application was rejected. She challenged the decision in federal court on the grounds that her right to life and security of the person under the Canadian Charter had been violated and that the denial of coverage was discriminatory. (shrink)

My invitation to respond to Lepora and Goodin may be the result of my work on complicity—in particular, the participation of health professionals in torture and aggressive interrogation in the so-called ‘war on terror’.1,2 However, instead of responding to the précis, I intend to address the section of the authors' book dealing with compromise and to explore the implications of their approach for some pressing public health issues.3,4 In their chapter entitled ‘Compromise as a Template’, Lepora and Goodin contend that (...) ‘[i]t is only when the intra-personal conflict forces an agent to choose among items of principled concern … to her that a compromise is genuinely involved’ (p. 19). The authors are right to emphasise the ethical significance of setting aside, forsaking or violating one's principles to reach an agreement. There may be serious implications for the integrity of an individual or an institution that makes such a compromise. But we should ensure that the intrapersonal focus does not lead to the neglect of other important ethical dimensions. A compromise may be problematic because of its impact on others who are affected by, but are not …. (shrink)