Money for Results?
By Michael Leshinski
Prestigious Harvard University Medical School was recently under the public microscope for some potentially unethical acts that were undertaken by a few of their esteemed psychiatrists. The NY Times reports that three well known doctors were found to be on the payroll of big pharma. While this it is not illegal to do types of work for pharmaceutical companies, such as consulting, it is illegal to falsely represent the amount of money given by these companies. In this case, the psychiatrists and hospital are both to blame for the misrepresentation. But there is a more important issue here. The payoffs from the pharmaceutical companies may actually be a conflict of interest. The research being done by Harvard Medical School at Massachusetts General Hospital deals with treating children with anti-psychotic drugs. It just so happens that these medical professionals are receiving payment from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these drugs. The doctors are accused of designing studies that are bound to provide favorable outcomes for the drug in question. With positive results from the study, it is easy for the doctors to endorse these drugs and try to push their views on others in the field. After all, who wouldn’t listen to a couple of Harvard guys?
During the course of my blogs, I usually ask the readers thoughts on whether the reported topic is ethical or not. In this case, however, it is clear to see the shady dealings that are often present in the medical/pharmaceutical world. These individuals received more than $1 million over the course of seven years. What did they do to earn that money? Their job title was consultant. Did they consult the drug companies on how to correctly deposit the money into their bank accounts? The article reports a possibility of simple mistake made by the doctors in reporting their outside income. Whether or not that happened seems to be irrelevant compared to their situation. At their institution, the main research focuses on the treatment of children with anti-psychotic drugs. Meanwhile, their outside income is generated by a manufacturer of the same anti-psychotic drugs. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment