corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 18370

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Crock E
Ethics of pharmaceutical company relationships with the nursing profession: No free lunch…and no more pens?
Contemporary Nurse 2009 Oct; 33:(2):202-209
http://www.atypon-link.com/EMP/doi/abs/10.5555/conu.2009.33.2.202


Abstract:

In recent years, nurses have increasingly become recipients of pharmaceutical company gifts, funding and sponsorship. There has been little discussion in the nursing literature, however, of the ethical and professional implications of nurses’ acceptance of such sponsorship. This article examines ethical issues related to the issue of nurses’ accepting benefits from pharmaceutical companies (and other commercial enterprises).

It aims to encourage nurses to look critically at the implications of accepting such gifts/sponsorship, or to enter any form of relationship with commercial companies within the health sector, and to stimulate further discussion of this issue within the profession.

Keywords:
ethics, pharmaceutical industry, nursing, conflict of interest, nursing standards, sponsorship

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963