Attitudes of physicians and public to pharmaceutical industry 'gifts'

P. U. MacNeill, I. H. Kerridge, D. Newby, Barrie J. Stokes, Evan Doran, D. A. Henry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Few studies have reported the attitudes of both individual doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies. Aims: To investigate the attitudes of both doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of receiving particular 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies, and to consider whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. Methods: A survey questionnaire of medical specialists in Australia and a survey questionnaire of members of the public itemised 23 'gifts' (valued between AU$10 and AU$2500) and asked whether or not each was appropriate. Results: Both medical specialists and members of the public believe certain 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies are appropriate but not others. There was a tendency for members of the public to be more permissive than medical specialists. Conclusion: Although some professional guidelines place importance on the attitudes of the general public to 'gift' giving, and other guidelines give importance to a need for transparency and public accountability, we question whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. We suggest that more weight be given to the need for independence of clinical decision making, with empirical evidence indicating that even small 'gifts' can bias clinicians' judgments, and to important values such as the primacy of patient welfare, autonomy and social justice. We conclude that it is time to eliminate giving and receiving of promotional items between the pharmaceutical industry and members of health professions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)335-341
Number of pages7
JournalInternal Medicine Journal
Volume40
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Gift Giving
Drug Industry
Physicians
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Guidelines
Health Occupations
Social Responsibility
Social Justice
Health Promotion
Weights and Measures

Cite this

MacNeill, P. U. ; Kerridge, I. H. ; Newby, D. ; Stokes, Barrie J. ; Doran, Evan ; Henry, D. A. / Attitudes of physicians and public to pharmaceutical industry 'gifts'. In: Internal Medicine Journal. 2010 ; Vol. 40, No. 5. pp. 335-341.
@article{b7ebde2120334ddb9fc02d90de114ecf,
title = "Attitudes of physicians and public to pharmaceutical industry 'gifts'",
abstract = "Background: Few studies have reported the attitudes of both individual doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies. Aims: To investigate the attitudes of both doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of receiving particular 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies, and to consider whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. Methods: A survey questionnaire of medical specialists in Australia and a survey questionnaire of members of the public itemised 23 'gifts' (valued between AU$10 and AU$2500) and asked whether or not each was appropriate. Results: Both medical specialists and members of the public believe certain 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies are appropriate but not others. There was a tendency for members of the public to be more permissive than medical specialists. Conclusion: Although some professional guidelines place importance on the attitudes of the general public to 'gift' giving, and other guidelines give importance to a need for transparency and public accountability, we question whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. We suggest that more weight be given to the need for independence of clinical decision making, with empirical evidence indicating that even small 'gifts' can bias clinicians' judgments, and to important values such as the primacy of patient welfare, autonomy and social justice. We conclude that it is time to eliminate giving and receiving of promotional items between the pharmaceutical industry and members of health professions.",
author = "MacNeill, {P. U.} and Kerridge, {I. H.} and D. Newby and Stokes, {Barrie J.} and Evan Doran and Henry, {D. A.}",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02233.x",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "335--341",
journal = "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine",
issn = "1444-0903",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

Attitudes of physicians and public to pharmaceutical industry 'gifts'. / MacNeill, P. U.; Kerridge, I. H.; Newby, D.; Stokes, Barrie J.; Doran, Evan; Henry, D. A.

In: Internal Medicine Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5, 05.2010, p. 335-341.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attitudes of physicians and public to pharmaceutical industry 'gifts'

AU - MacNeill, P. U.

AU - Kerridge, I. H.

AU - Newby, D.

AU - Stokes, Barrie J.

AU - Doran, Evan

AU - Henry, D. A.

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - Background: Few studies have reported the attitudes of both individual doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies. Aims: To investigate the attitudes of both doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of receiving particular 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies, and to consider whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. Methods: A survey questionnaire of medical specialists in Australia and a survey questionnaire of members of the public itemised 23 'gifts' (valued between AU$10 and AU$2500) and asked whether or not each was appropriate. Results: Both medical specialists and members of the public believe certain 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies are appropriate but not others. There was a tendency for members of the public to be more permissive than medical specialists. Conclusion: Although some professional guidelines place importance on the attitudes of the general public to 'gift' giving, and other guidelines give importance to a need for transparency and public accountability, we question whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. We suggest that more weight be given to the need for independence of clinical decision making, with empirical evidence indicating that even small 'gifts' can bias clinicians' judgments, and to important values such as the primacy of patient welfare, autonomy and social justice. We conclude that it is time to eliminate giving and receiving of promotional items between the pharmaceutical industry and members of health professions.

AB - Background: Few studies have reported the attitudes of both individual doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies. Aims: To investigate the attitudes of both doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of receiving particular 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies, and to consider whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. Methods: A survey questionnaire of medical specialists in Australia and a survey questionnaire of members of the public itemised 23 'gifts' (valued between AU$10 and AU$2500) and asked whether or not each was appropriate. Results: Both medical specialists and members of the public believe certain 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies are appropriate but not others. There was a tendency for members of the public to be more permissive than medical specialists. Conclusion: Although some professional guidelines place importance on the attitudes of the general public to 'gift' giving, and other guidelines give importance to a need for transparency and public accountability, we question whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. We suggest that more weight be given to the need for independence of clinical decision making, with empirical evidence indicating that even small 'gifts' can bias clinicians' judgments, and to important values such as the primacy of patient welfare, autonomy and social justice. We conclude that it is time to eliminate giving and receiving of promotional items between the pharmaceutical industry and members of health professions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952720953&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02233.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02233.x

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 335

EP - 341

JO - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine

JF - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine

SN - 1444-0903

IS - 5

ER -