To the Editor: The supplement of the Journal published on 16 August 2010 — “Bipolar disorder: new understandings, emerging treatments”1 — illustrates a number of features of the current implementation of the Journal’s supplement policy that are problematic. While it is clearly stated that the supplement “was supported by an unconditional grant from AstraZeneca Neuroscience”, the amount of sponsorship, to whom it was paid, and how it was used were not disclosed. Such information is particularly pertinent as evidence suggests that the pharmaceutical industry has financial motivation to see a widening of the diagnostic boundaries of bipolar disorder and a rebadging of atypical antipsychotics as “mood stabilisers”.2
- 1. Castle DJ, Berk M, Hocking BM. Bipolar disorder: new understandings, emerging treatments. Med J Aust 2010; 193 (4 Suppl): S3-S4. <MJA full text>
- 2. Spielmans GI, Parry PI. From evidence-based medicine to marketing-based medicine: the evidence from internal industry documents. J Bioeth Inq 2010; 7: 13-29.
- 3. Paris J. The bipolar spectrum: a critical perspective. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2009; 17: 206-213.
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.