Gifts, Drug Samples, and other Items Given to Medical Specialists by Pharmaceutical Companies |
| |
| Authors: | Paul M. McNeill Ian H. Kerridge Catherine Arciuli David A. Henry Graham J. Macdonald Richard O. Day Suzanne R. Hill |
| |
| Affiliation: | (1) School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia;(2) Centre for Values Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;(3) Department of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;(4) Discipline of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia;(5) Merck Sharp &; Dohme, South Granville, Australia;(6) Department of Physiology &; Pharmacology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Aim To ascertain the quantity and nature of gifts and items provided by the pharmaceutical industry in Australia to medical specialists and to consider whether these are appropriate in terms of justifiable ethical standards, empirical research and views expressed in the literature.Design and Setting Fifty-one medical Sydney specialists were asked to collect all gifts, offers, invitations, and items received from pharmaceutical companies in an eight-week period.Main Outcome Measures The items received were categorised as promotional/educational, drug samples, clinical practice aids, office gifts, personal gifts, and invitations; and were analysed in relation to the pharmaceutical industry Code of Conduct.Results A large number (mean = 42/participant) and wide range of gifts and items were received. These included promotional/educational items (mean = 21), drug samples (mean = 8), office gifts (mean = 5) and personal gifts (mean = 1), clinical aids (mean = 3), and invitations (mean = 3) to meals, meetings, and conferences. Most gifts and items complied with the Code with a few breaches including offers of entertainment (sporting event and cabaret), items of high monetary value (in competitions with prizes unrelated to medicine), unbranded gifts, and promotional documents presented as journal articles.Conclusions Medical specialists received many gifts and items from pharmaceutical companies and a few that infringed the Code current at the time of the study. The findings were considered in the light of changes that have since been made to the industry Code of Conduct and professional medical guidelines on ethical relationships between physicians and the industry. In large measure, these changes are supported although some suggestions are made for stricter standards.Competing Interest Graham Macdonald is employed by Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia). Richard Day serves as an Advisory Board member for Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) (rofecoxib, etoricoxib), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Asia) (rofecoxib), Abbott Australia (adalimumab), Schering–Plough Australia (infliximab), Amgen Australia (anakinra), GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Australia (paracetamol) and, previously, Pfizer Australia (celecoxib). Any honoraria for these activities are placed in audited trust funds of St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, to be used to support academic activities within the Department of Clinical Pharmacology. |
| |
| Keywords: | Code of Conduct Gifts Medical specialists |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
