Conflict Of Interest In Pharmaceutical Companies

Medicine is an industry-dominated climate, with physicians and patients relying on

pharmaceutical companies to provide the medications needed to adequately address patient

health concerns. However, because pharmaceutical companies stand to profit from the drugs they

sell, they have an incentive to influence consumers to buy the drugs they manufacture. These

efforts introduce a conflict of interest: between the objective of pharmaceutical companies to

maximize profits and the need of patients to receive the most safe, effective, and individualized

medications at any given time. Thompson (1993) defines conflicts of interest as follows:

…a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as a

Vulnerable consumers — whether patients in need

or time-strapped clinicians — are more likely to be misled. There is also a need, therefore, for a

more nuanced understanding of the interaction between marketing practices and preexisting

human vulnerabilities to this mismarketing.

Ethical Question

Should companies market a medication for the treatment of a disorder when the medication has

not received formal approval from the relevant national regulatory body?

Possible Answers:

Yes, as long as empirical evidence exists that supports the drug’s use toward the

treatment of a given disorder, it is the company’s right to make this information known —

whether or not national regulatory bodies have formally weighed in on the evidence.

No, the absence of a formal indication may suggest that there is inadequate evidence that

the drug is effective and that it does not have a problematic safety profile. A formal indication by

the regulatory body serves as a testimony that a third party, with the patient’s best interests in

mind, has examined the drug and found it to be sufficiently effective and safe.

On the one hand, the company has the right — even the duty — towards its shareholders