AMA Code Of Ethics Case Study

The debate concerning marketing to physicians from pharmaceutical companies dates to the 1960s (Greene). By 1992 the American Medical Association issued ethics guidelines addressing the issue. Under these guidelines, gifts were allowed as long as they provided educational benefit to the patient or healthcare professional and are valued under $100 (AMA). However, evidence suggests many physicians do not follow the AMA’s ethics guidelines. Using the Vermont and Minnesota law which requires disclose of payments, Joseph S. Ross, MD found that a substantial number of payments valued at more than $100 were made to physician’s by pharmaceutical companies (Ross). Additionally, according to George Loewenstein, PhD who is a professor of psychology in

Such rules that would be imposed would be to not engage in any deceptive marketing, not break the AMAs code of ethics as well etc. However, according to David Grande in his paper Limiting the Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry Gifts on Physicians: Self-Regulation or Government Intervention? “affording sales representatives professional status would seem to enhance their standing as educators for physicians and potentially increase the reliance of physicians on industry sources by validating this role. Rather than encouraging the profession to take ownership of its education, embracing sales representatives as professionals and educators would appear to be a step in the opposite direction” (Grande). Additionally, this could serve as a mechanism to ensure these salesmen have a basic understanding of pharmaceutical products. This solution has already been implemented at the state level. One example would be The District of Columbia was the first jurisdiction to pass legislation (SafeRx Amendment Act of 2008)

Since the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 was implemented it introduced a “user fee” that is used to pay for new regulators to speed up the reviews. However, According Susan Thaul, a Specialist in Drug Safety and Effectiveness this fee now makes up 62 percent of the FDA's budget for drug approvals (Thaul). So, the regulated industry pays its regulators. Giving power to the wealthiest corporations. This is how they manage to get away with not reporting unfavorable trials. According to a study by Dr. Ben Goldacre published in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Timely reporting was independently associated with factors such as FDA oversight, a later trial phase, and industry funding. A sample review suggested that 45% of industry-funded trials were not required to report results” (Anderson). This means the FDA is not doing its job of ensuring these new developments are thoroughly tested and are safe for consumption from the general population. With the current system, clinical trials are subject to be punished by fine of $10,000 per day past the deadline for them to be published. However, according to Goldacre’s findings, the fine has never been issued (Anderson). This is why the regulated industry should not be given any leverage over its regulators. We need to introduce legislation with stricter guidelines and fun the FDA with taxpayer money so it is capable of enforcing the law. Otherwise pharmaceutical companies will continue