Empirical uncertainty and moral contest: A qualitative analysis of the relationship between medical specialists and the pharmaceutical industry in Australia
AbstractAlliances between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry have become increasingly widespread in recent years. While there are clearly benefits for doctors and their patients derived from the medical profession working with industry, concern has arisen that the commercial imperative of industry may conflict with physicians' independence and professional integrity. This paper reports the findings of an in-depth interview study with 50 Australian medical specialists undertaken to explore how and why they interact with the pharmaceutical industry and to gain insight into specialists' moral evaluation of the relationship and its consequences. Analysis of the qualitative data led to the categorizing medical specialists into three types--Confident Engagers, Ambivalent Engagers and Avoiders--based on their descriptions and evaluations of their relationship. The majority of interviewees believed that some relationship with the pharmaceutical industry was inevitable, that there were both risks and benefits associated with the relationship and that as individuals they were competent in minimizing the risks and maximizing the benefits. However, their views diverged on the extent and magnitude of the risks and benefits. The data suggested that there is considerable variance in specialists' judgments of what constituted appropriate industry largesse. Specialists' relationship with the pharmaceutical industry has inherent tensions that are managed by different doctors in different ways. Moral evaluation of the relationship and its consequences varies and the ethical concerns surrounding the relationship appeared as an area of contest. The findings suggest that in developing normative guidelines for academic and professional practice, policy makers should recognise and account for the complexity of the relationship and for the variation in medical specialists' views and feelings.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 62 (2006)
Issue (Month): 6 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.