ETHICALLY PRACTICED UNETHICAL STRATEGIES IN PHARMA INDUSTRY - WHOM TO BE BLAMED
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v6.i2.2018.1538Keywords:
Business Ethics, Pharmaceutical Industry, Evergreening, Ghostwriting, Biased researchAbstract [English]
As the competition is getting more intense, the number of instances of companies alleged to have been involved in illegal and unethical practices is increasing at an alarming rate. Being an integral part of the society, business organizations have certain duties, responsibilities, and obligations toward the society, referred to as "Business Ethics". The pressures of the reality challenges the ethical frameworks traditionally followed by organizations. The global pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated, capital intensive, and driven by large research and development expenditures. Despite the pharmaceutical industry’s notable contributions to human progress, it is fraught with ethical challenges. This paper presents the ethically practiced unethical strategies that are followed in the industry referencing the case studies of mega corporations and concludes the need for “systematic training in ethics” for all the stakeholders and the need for ethical leadership in an organization.
Downloads
References
Bero LA,Rennie D (1996). Influences on the quality of published drug studies. International Journal Technical Assessment Health Care, 12: 209–37.
Blumenthal D (2004). Doctors and Drug Companies. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(18):1885-1890 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr042734
Callaham M (2002). Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA. 287:2847–2850.
Davidson RA (1986). Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med.1:155–158.
Dickersin K (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 263:1385–1389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014
Djulbegovic B (2001). Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research. Cur Oncol Rep, 3: 389–95.
Djulbegovic B et al (2000). The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet; 356: 635–8.
Dwivedi G, Hallihosur S, Rangan L (2010). Evergreening: a deceptive device in patent rights. Technol Soc, 32:324-330.
European Commission (2009). Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Report. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/communication_en.pdf.
Faunce TA, Lexchin J (2007). 'Linkage' pharmaceutical evergreening in Canada and Australia. Aust New Zealand Health Policy, 4:8.
Finucane TE (2004). Association of funding and findings of pharmaceutical research at a meeting of a medical professional society. Am J Med, 117:842–845 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.05.029
Fugh-Berman A (2005). The Corporate Coauthor. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:p547.
Gaudry KS (2011). Evergreening: a common practice to protect new drugs. Nat Biotechnol, 29:876-878.
Goldacre B (2012). Bad pharma. Fourth Estate, 2012.
Hauck WW (1986). A proposal for interpreting and reporting negative studies. Stat Med, 5:203–209.
Hemphill CS, Sampat BN (2012). Evergreening, patent challenges, and effective market life in pharmaceuticals. J Health Econ, 31:327-339.
Hughes D (2006). Less is more: medicines that require less frequent administration improve adherence, but are they better? PharmacoEconomics, 24:211-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624030-00001
Hutchins M (2003). Extending the monopoly - how secondary patents can be used to delay or prevent generic competition upon expiry of the basic product patent. J Generic Med, 57:57-71.
J. L. Klocke, Comment (2008). Prescription Records for Sale: Privacy and Free Speech Issues Arising from the Sale of De-Identified Medical Data,” Idaho Law Review 44, no. 2, 511-536, 515.
Koren G (1991). Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research. JAMA, 266:1824–1826.
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326:1167–70. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
McCarthy M (2000). Company sought to block paper's publication. Lancet, 356: 1659.
McHenry L (2005). On the Origin of Great Ideas: Science and the Age of Big Pharma. Hast Cent Rep, 35: p17–19.
Moghadam RG (2003). Scientific writing: a career for pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 60(18):1899–900. [PubMed] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/60.18.1899
Moher D et al (1999). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess, 3(12): 1–90
Moher D et al (1998). Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analysis? Lancet, 352: 609–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X
Nathan DG,Weatherall DJ (1999). Academia and industry: lessons from the unfortunate events in Toronto. Lancet, 353: 771–2.
Perlis RH (2005). Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry,162:1957–1960.
Randall T (1991). Kennedy hearings say no more free lunch or much else from drug firms. JAMA, 265: 440-441.
Rennie D (1997). Thyroid storm. JAMA, 277: 1238–43.
Rochon PA et al (1994). A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med, 154: 157–63.
Sackett DL, Oxman AD. HARLOT plc (2003). an amalgamation of the world’s two oldest professions. BMJ, 327:1442-5.
Sismondo Sergio (2008). Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences. Social Studies of Science. 39: p171–198
Smith R (2003). Medical Journals and pharmaceutical companies: uneasy bedfellows. BMJ, 326:1202-1205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1202
Smith R (2005). Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies. PLoS Medicine, 2(5): e138. http://medicine.plosjournals.org DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA (2004). Financial Conflicts of Interest in Physicians’ Relationships with the Pharmaceutical Industry — Self-Regulation in the Shadow of Federal Prosecution. New Engl J Med, 351:1891-1900 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMlim042229
Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med, 358:252-260.
Wand DR (1992). Pharmaceutical promotions a free lunch? N Engl J Med, 327: 351-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199207303270511
Wazana A (2000). Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry, Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift? Journal of the American Medical Assoc., 283(3):373-380
Wertheimer AI, Santella TM (2009). Pharmacoevolution: the advantages of incremental innovation. Innovation and Health. London, UK: International Policy Network; 2009.
Whitehead BJ, Kempner Stuart, Kempner R (2008). Managing generic competition and patent strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. J Intell Prop Law Pract, 3:226-235 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpn013
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
