[Ip-health] Medical Ethics

[PiterDe Vries]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Thanks for this article. Unfortunately it is not show adequate balance.
Blame is cast on companies who face enormous challenges in a sector where
there a dual responsibilities.

One the one hand, there is an obligation of innovator pharma companies to
meet health needs. And enormous amounts are spent on addressing health
problems with enormous risks. Costs of research are phenomenal and failures
outpace successes!

On the other hand, there are obligations to shareholders, who want returns.
This means the companies are faced with demands to meet and beat market
expectations for profits and for maintenance of their share value.

While some companies have gone to extremes, it is the responsibility of
regulators to manage these challenges. One cannot blame the companies' for
not acting as judge jury and executioner. This is why there are public
health institutions like the FDA and state level regulatory authorities. In
addition, there are doctors, who are independent make the final health
decisions. Where there are insurance companies, these also exert
considerable influence in what drugs are used and what treatments can be
accessed and paid for.

While pharma profits have been comparable to good companies in the broader
stock exchanges, there is a systemic under pricing of the risks
pharmaceutical companies face. The increased demands for better priced
medicines and compulsory licenses does not help the situation. These are
disincentives to invest in new drugs. Coupled to this is competition from
generic companies who do very little research (except to copy) but who
benefit enormously. Why is there so little focus on generic companies and
their free riding on the work of others.

If people are upset by the actions of one or two errant incidents of
pharmaceutical companies, they would do well to interpret this as an
indication of the pressures (and inherent risks) faced by innovator
pharmaceutical companies. It is too simplistic to blame them without taking
into account regulatory failings. And if there is a perception that
innovator pharma makes too much profit, this is only true if one seriously
discounts the medical malpractice claims (and the provision for such risks)
that such companies face. And these comparisons are also only valid if one
fails to account for the enormous benefits that innovator R&D companies
bring. For instance, you can't say that alcohol is bad, without taking into
account its proper recreational and medical use.

>From the perspective of companies, the sector is in crisis because of the
flaws in the system that do not adequately reward the risks that innovator
companies face (and put them constantly on the defensive arguing policy
instead of doing research). Blaming companies for governmental
responsibilities is too easy.

For instance, why does the FDA not conduct proper diligence on the data
presented? Why is Corporate Social Responsibility of millions and milions of
dollars undermined?

Innovator companies have shown commitment to meeting jointly public health
goals and meeting the needs of their shareholders. This is how the market
operates - profits are fine.

Please can we discuss, but lets not be simplistic as it does not take us
anywhere.

Also, there are probably many on the list who share these views but who just
lurk. This needs to be rectified otherwise those who uncritically criticise
innovator Pharma will shape the nature of this list - to the detriment of
all.

And to Ress - it remains to be seen what evidence passes legal muster in the
Vioxx case. Right now on Vioxx, many of these are just allegations and there
has been no admission of liability. Also, note these are civil suits - not
cases of manslaughter as the article seems to intimate.

Piter

2009/6/29 Manon Ress <manon.ress@keionline.org>

> http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/654423
>
> MEDICAL ETHICS
> Drug 'reports' found to be faked
> June 22, 2009
>
> Stuart Laidlaw
> FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER
>
> From the creation of fake academic journals, to bogus stories
> submitted to real journals, to falsified results in some of academia's
>