Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19913

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Magazine

Samuel G
Code Worth Embracing
Australian Doctor 2006 Aug 1130

Abstract:

The revised Code of Conduct is aimed at protecting the good reputation of Australia’s doctors.

Full text:

It is both disappointing and surprising that Australia’s peak medical body sees increasing transparency of the relationship between doctors and drug companies as a waste of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s time.

AMA president Dr Mukesk Haikerwal has described calls for increased reporting provisions in the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct as a “beat-up” and argued that it will discourage important educational events.

But would most reasonable members of the public consider dinner at exclusive restaurants or harbour cruises as important learning opportunities for doctors?

If a doctor prescribes a drug from a company that has just spent the weekend wining and dining them or taking them on harbour cruise, surely patients have a right to know. Trying to argue that such information is irrelevant or not in the public’s interest only serves to threaten the credibility of all medical professionals.

Doctors are among the most trusted members of our community, we share highly personal information with them. Such a high level of trust from the public requires complete confidence not only that our doctors are well trained and competent, but that they are beyond influences and are acting solely in the best interests of their patients.

The AMA argues the increasing scrutiny may discourage important educational activities. Dr Haikerwal has been quoted as saying that the “spartan fare which is often out there is putting some doctors off attending educational activities” and that drug company sponsored hospitality “oiled the wheels” of medical education. 1

Doctors have a responsibility to keep their skills current and ensure they are aware of developments that impact on the way they treat patients and the community expectations they will continue to educate themselves throughout their career.

Surely it is not suggested that doctors would compromise their standard of care as a result of increased transparency in educational events provided by drug companies – even worse, because of the standard of the meals provided?

And let’s be clear – the information required to be published under conditions imposed by the ACCC does not include details of individual doctors attending.

If they are acting ethically and have nothing to hide from their patients, they have nothing to fear from increased scrutiny of educational activities provided by pharmaceutical companies.

On the contrary, the increased transparency contained in the revised code helps protect the good reputation of Australia’s doctors. As well as providing confidence to the community, it allows doctors to defend themselves against claims of undue influence or junket-taking.

Lavish lunches, exotic locations or excessive gifts from powerful drug companies leave a bad taste in the mouths of consumers and have no place in an industry that depends so heavily on its reputation and ethics. No one would deny doctors a simple meal as a reasonable part of an all-day conference. But there is a limit.

Whether such largesse influences a doctor or not is only part of the problem. The perception of influences a doctor or not is only part of the problem. The perception of influence is enough to serious damage the good name of all the country’s GPs and Specialists. The AMA has before it the opportunity to put such claims of inappropriate gift-taking to bed once and for all by embracing this enhanced code of conduct.

Reference:
1. ‘Doctor treats to be disclosed ‘, Australian, 26 July 2006.