Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5868
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: news
Anti-industry campaign strengthens
Pharma in Focus ( Australia) 2006 Aug 14
http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/news.asp?newsid=1288
Full text:
Anti-industry campaign strengthens
http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/news.asp?newsid=1288
Posted 14 August 2006
The anti-pharmaceutical industry campaign being waged in the mainstream
media gathered new pace last week as The Age published a ‘special
investigation’ into the industry and other media outlets called for
fundamental change to the regulation of company/doctor relationships.
The scrutiny and criticism has widened in the last week from drug
promotion and relationships with healthcare professionals to the conduct
of clinical trials.
Under the group headline ‘Profit and Pills’ The Age published a number
of articles critical of industry practice.
On Monday, the newspaper reported remarks by Professor Stephen Clarke of
Sydney University accusing drug companies of “controlling, vetting and
censoring trial information to present results in the most favourable
light for sharemarkets”.
Another article on the same day quoted Australian Drug Evaluation
Committee head Professor Martin Tattersall as saying that “finding
experts to sit on the committee is now all but impossible because so
many doctors have ‘huge conflicts of interest’ with drug companies”.
The article was critical of the role of the key opinion leaders and
expert advisory boards used by pharmaceutical companies.
On Tuesday The Age moved its spotlight to mental health, investigating
what it described as “the depression industry”. Examining links between
a number of companies and Mental Health Council of Australia, it said
“The pharmaceutical industry has used its financial muscle to establish
relationships with Australia’s top mental health groups and
opinion-leading psychiatrists – who in turn shape the way depression is
viewed and treated.”
The article singled out Pfizer’s and Wyeth’s funding of GP education in
depression as suspect and focussed on pharmaceutical company payments to
patient organisations and psychiatrists including executive director of
the Brain and Mind Research Institute, Professor Ian Hickie.
Further articles appeared on Wednesday critcising company funding of GP
education and the provision of promotional items to GPs.
Other media outlets added their voices to the chorus of criticism
throughout the week. The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised against
doctors accepting pharma industry support of any kind; The Canberra
Times called for “independent oversight” of doctor/company
relationships;The Australian Financial Review called for independent
control of the same relationships backed by “big fines, jail time” and
electronic media was also negative.
Medicines Australia expressed concern over the tone of recent media
coverage industry coverage but said it would not take on the media.
“Medicines Australia and our member companies are committed to
transparency and accountability, so we welcome any scrutiny. Clearly, we
have concerns over the way issues impacting our industry have recently
been reported, and we have communicated those concerns to the relevant
media,” a spokesperson said.
“Of utmost concern are the industry’s 15,000 employees, who would have
every right to be disappointed over the way some people have chosen to
disparage their work. We do not plan to enter into a lengthy public
debate over the media’s treatment of the industry – we prefer to let our
medicines do the talking. We are proud of the Code of Conduct, and it is
evidence that our industry is the most demanding in Australia when it
comes to standards of ethical behaviour. In fact, we believe that many
other industries could learn from the pharmaceutical industry. An
interesting and disappointing point is that in all the recent coverage
there has been little or no mention of patients.”
