The Association for Medical Ethics together with the University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, hosted a symposium on Ethics in June 2008 with experts from industry, academia and government from around the country. From this seminar -- which also included physicians and ethicists -- and meetings that followed the AME Ethical Rules of Disclosure were drafted.
The AME has stated that it believes the key to medical reform is the clear and full disclosure of any and all money received from industry by those doctors and others that influence medicine by either their research and opinions, or in their editorial and medical society leadership roles. "FULL disclosure is absolutely crucial in order to determine whether data has independent validity or not, which is a critical concept in science that helps ensure the integrity of research," stated Dr. Charles Rosen, AME President.
The following guidelines will be presented to President-elect Barack Obama's team for consideration in his medical reform policies. "We strongly believe that the fastest way for significant medical reform in this country is full financial disclosure by those who are in a position of trust, namely the physician," said Rosen.
The guidelines for disclosure are based on the following principles:
- Good medicine and science depend on minimizing bias.
-
Financial ties and financial incentives present compelling interests that may result in unintentional bias, and potentially intentional bias.
-
Even where financial conflicts do not result in bias, the integrity of science and medicine is at risk because of the potential perception that bias may have occurred.
- Because of the risks of real or perceived bias, transparency regarding financial interests is critical for clinicians, scientists, and the public to weight the validity of research findings, policy decisions, and practice guidelines developed by professional medical societies.
- Academicians with or without tenure, editorial board members, and medical society officers are looked to by the public, academics, and fellow physicians as a source of unbiased scientific data and education. Therefore, they should have no Substantive Financial Interest that creates unacceptable conflicts. Substantive Financial Interest is defined as receipt of greater than $50,000 from industry in one calendar year.
- All scientists and clinicians should publicly disclose in all publications and presentations the precise nature and amount of any financial conflicting interest exceeding $500 per calendar year.
READ "VANDERBILT RESEARCH: COFFEE GROWERS PAY, RESEARCHER DISTORTS
READ "CHEW ON THIS WRIGLEY: RESEARCH CLAIMS GUM MAKES TEENS SMARTER"
READ "MATH SMARTS FROM CHOCOLATE & GUM: SUSPECT RESEARCH CLAIMS.
TO READ MORE PHYSICIAN-ISSUE ARTICLES, CLICK HERE.
Comments