Little research has been done on the extent of the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and medical students, and the effect on students of receiving gifts.
Potential harms to patients are documented elsewhere; we focus on potential harms to students.
Students who receive gifts may believe that they are receiving something for nothing, contributing to a sense of entitlement that is not in the best interests of their moral development as doctors.
Alternatively, students may be subject to recognised or unrecognised reciprocal obligations that potentially influence their decision making.
Medical educators have a duty of care to protect students from influence by pharmaceutical companies.
- 1. Komesaroff P, Kerridge I. Ethical issues concerning the relationships between medical practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry. Med J Aust 2002; 176: 1118-1121. <MJA full text>
- 2. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000; 283: 373-380.
- 3. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-1170.
- 4. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA 2003; 290: 252-255.
- 5. Katz D, Caplan AL, Merz JF. All gifts large and small: toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift giving. Am J Bioethics 2003; 3: 39-46.
- 6. Caamano F, Figueiras A, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of commercial information on prescription quantity in primary care. Eur J Public Health 2002; 12: 187-191.
- 7. Watkins C, Harvey I, Carthy P, et al. Attitudes and behaviour of general practitioners and their prescribing costs: a national cross sectional survey. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 29-34.
- 8. Mansfield PR. Bribes for doctors: a gift for bioethicists? Am J Bioethics 2003; 3: 47-48.
- 9. Stern DT. Practicing what we preach? An analysis of the curriculum of values in medical education. Am J Med 1998; 104: 569-575.
- 10. Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. The virtues in medical practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
- 11. Rogers WA, Braunack-Mayer AJ. Practical ethics for general practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
- 12. Rothman D. Medical professionalism — focussing on the real issues. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1284-1286.
- 13. Palmisano P, Edelstein J. Teaching drug promotion abuses to health profession students. J Med Educ 1980; 55: 453-455.
- 14. Sagarin BJ, Cialdini RB, Rice WE, Serna SB. Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 2002; 83: 526-541.
- 15. Wilkes MS, Hoffman JR. An innovative approach to educating medical students about pharmaceutical promotion. Acad Med 2001; 76: 1271-1277.
- 16. Wolfe SM. The destruction of medicine by market forces: teaching acquiescence or resistance and change? Acad Med 2002; 77: 5-7.
- 17. Healthy Skepticism. Estimated spending on drug promotion in Australia in 2003. Available at: www.healthyskepticism.org/promotion/spending.htm (accessed Oct 2003).
- 18. McCormick BB, Tomlinson G, Brill-Edwards P, Detsky AS. Effect of restricting contact between pharmaceutical company representatives and internal medicine residents on post training attitudes and behavior. JAMA 2001; 286: 1994-1999.
- 19. Brotzman GL, Mark DH. The effect on resident attitudes of regulatory policies regarding pharmaceutical representative activities. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 130-134.
- 20. Sandberg WS, Carlos R, Sandberg EH, Roizen MF. The effect of educational gifts from pharmaceutical firms on medical students’ recall of company names or products. Acad Med 1997; 72: 916-918.
- 21. Spingarn RW, Berlin JA, Strom BL. When pharmaceutical manufacturers’ employees present grand rounds, what do residents remember? Acad Med 1996; 71: 86-88.
- 22. Kassirer JP. A piece of my mind: financial indigestion. JAMA 2000; 284: 2156-2157.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.