Skip to main content

The Ethics of Pharma-Patient Relationships

It was fortuitous timing this week when I received an email from Denise Sibler, head of Basil Strategies and coordinator of the Doctors 2.0 & You conference in Paris, asking my opinion on the issue of ethics in patient-pharma relations.

"I can't identify a time when I wasn't interested in the ethical issues of health care and one of them is the pharma-patient relationship," Sibler said. "With the rise of the ePatient, many interactions and relations become possible, so new questions have arisen."

I'd just come from HealthCamp Kansas City where myself and three other patients were fortunate to be able to participate in a conversation with members of Eli Lilly's Open Innovation Team. Team members were seeking input on how to improve the clinical trial process by crowdsourcing ideas. Their focus was not simply on R&D but on the patient experience. Overall, the patient group's suggestions echoed those I heard during a similar conversation with a representative from Pfizer while at HealthCamp DC in June regarding increasing patient participation in clinical trials—share the data and show patients their involvement matters. It is never unethical to have a conversation. Only through open dialogue can we begin to understand one another's view points, and that goes for the relationship between pharma and patients as well.

Patients enter trials not simply for themselves but to help others with their disease and advance scientific discoveries. Patients consequently should be allowed to learn along with researchers. What information about a patient is learned during the course of a trial should be shared with the patient—good or bad. If a trial succeeds, patients should be informed of the immediate results and continued to be kept aware of the long-term impacts of the trial. When a trial fails, patients should be informed as to the reasons why and how those reasons will play into future trials in terms of revamping, improving, or altogether abandoning a treatment or device.

The issue is, at its heart, one of transparency. Patients are not stupid. Anyone familiar with the scientific method knows that a hypothesis must be tested before a conclusion can be reached and there are inherent risks in the process. Testing a hypothesis results in a certain degree of failure; however, a conclusion always is reached, and therefore failure to prove a hypothesis is not a failure to learn. We incorporate our gained knowledge into the development of a new hypothesis, and go on to the next phase of testing.

As for what is not ethical, my opinion is highly influenced by my personal needs. Historically there has been little market to motivate pharma to invest in developing drugs to treat rare diseases. Small patient populations don't haven't had the ROI of drug development for alzheimer's or diabetes. Changes are happening in this field. A May 2, 2012 report from Forbes states, "A great example is Genzyme’s Cerezyme for the treatment of Gaucher disease, a genetic disorder that impacts organ function. Cerezyme is extremely effective – but it is also extremely expensive with annual treatment costs as high as $300,000/patient. As a result of this high price, Cerezyme’s 2010 sales were over $700 million – a respectable number for any drug." Such changes don't give me any sense of hope for a treatment within my lifetime. How pharma could potentially address this disparity is by developing off-label uses for existing drugs with clinical trials involving similar diseases and targeting patients' chief symptomatic complaints—pain, nausea, headaches, etc. For many patients, being able to effectively treat a major symptom would do enough to improve their quality of life that the wait for a cure would become less torturous. Truly implementing off-label use would require overhaul within the insurance industry such that clearly beneficial off-label use is covered just the same as an antibiotic. The healthcare industry's continued failure to address the rare disease community's needs is no small matter, as rare diseases effect more than 30 million Americans.

Furthermore, pharma marketing absolutely must be revamped. While I am a firm believer in the engaged patient and participatory medicine, prescription drug interactions are not within the common patient's frame of knowledge. Marketing directly to the patient—at least in the manner in which it is done in the U.S.—and commanding that patients "ask your doctor about" prescription X, Y or Z is out of line and a sure sign of pharma's nature to prey on patients' desire for a cure to their disease. This methodology also is a disservice to healthcare providers who presumptively have more knowledge of the drug, its interactions, and the patient's condition when that healthcare provider determines that the drug is not appropriate for the patient and the patient subsequently blames the provider for a failure to provide care. The flip side of this is, of course, that marketing directly to providers may sway the providers' choice of medicines. While medicines come with a set list of possible side effects, each patient is an individual. A patient may have demonstrated adverse reactions to a drug, yet a provider unfamiliar with that patient may go against the patient's assertions that medicine x—though not new and shiny and expensive—really truly works better for him or her than medicine y.

We must ultimately remember that pharma and healthcare in general has turned the matter of life or death into a series of business decisions. Only when we put what is best for the patient—with respect and consideration for each patient as an individual—back at the forefront will we be able to actually effect change and engage in the true meaning of the word healthcare.

Examining this issue further is an extension of the Doctors 2.0 & You mission.

"Doctors 2.0 & You is a forum for exchange amongst healthcare's stakeholders internationally," Sibler said. The Doctors 2.0 & You manifesto was about all healthcare and fighting for better care in general. The next step is to drill down into specific issues."

In order to do so, Sibler will be working in conjunction with ePatients like myself in order to collect additional information about ethics in patient-pharma relations with the intent of issuing a report on the group's findings.


  1. I should say only that its awesome! Th e blog is informational and always produce amazing things. click here


Post a Comment

"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world." — Buddha

Popular posts from this blog

Access Medicine X: Live Stream Brings Silicon Valley Direct To You

Stanford Medicine X is a catalyst for new ideas, designed to explore social media and information
technology’s power to advance medical practices, improve health, and empower patients to participate in their own care. But Medicine X also seeks to engage and empower those unable to attend in person to still get involved in the discussion.

Through Medicine X’s Global Access program, main stage content from the three-day conference will be made available through a high-quality live stream. Anyone with an Internet connection around the world will be able to view keynote speakers such as Daniel Siegel, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at University of California-Los Angeles and author of The New York Times bestseller Brainstorm: The Power and Purpose of the Teenage Brain, and panel discussions such as Gonzalo Bacigalupe's focusing on the e-health movement and inequality among marginalized populations.

“Medicine X has distinguished itself through a singular commitment to inclusivit…

(My) Patient Leadership in Health Care

They say my grandmother used wait on the stoop of the family’s crackerbox house in Southside Chicago and watch as my father walked to school to see if he would get in a fight before he got to the end of the block. The eldest son of a Polish steel mill worker who dropped out of high school, my father was on the wrestling team and cleaned the inside of tanker trains. But he was smart. He liked science and math, went to college on a scholarship, majored in economics, and went on to Cornell Law School.

As a lawyer, he represented the incarcerated’s rights at the state department of corrections, practiced defense in the state supreme court, and became chief legal counsel at one of the state’s 16 public universities. He helped build houses with Habitat for Humanity, served midnight breakfast to college students during exam week, and tutored his daughter who did not inherit his aptitude for science and math. He taught constitutional law and never once found himself on the wrong side of the …

And In The Wilderness A Clearing Emerged

In addition to my work as an advocate, my actual "job" has been as a reporter and editor. I've been in the field professionally since I was 17 (though one could count running the school yearbook and starting a literary magazine as my initial forays). My first employment outside a horse stable was in an university's public relations office. I worked four summers there moving up from the mail room and putting together basic press releases to writing full articles and contracting for assignment work while at college. I earned a degree in journalism with an outside concentration in political science at UNC-Chapel Hill. While there I worked as a writer, desk editor and managing editor of The Daily Tar Heel; wrote for and edited a literary magazine; volunteered for Journalists United to Maximize Potential, a student-run organization that taught middle school students how to produce a newspaper; interned in public relations for the Morehead Planetarium; and interned in publ…