Article

Ethical issues in psychopharmacology.

California State University, Northridge, Department of Philosophy, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, California 91330-8253, USA.
Journal of Medical Ethics (Impact Factor: 1.69). 08/2006; 32(7):405-10. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.013185
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The marketing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the psychopharmacological industry presents a serious moral problem for the corporate model of medicine. In this paper I examine ethical issues relating to the efficacy and safety of these drugs. Pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to disclose all information in their possession bearing on the true risks and benefits of their drugs. Only then can patients make fully informed decisions about their treatment.

0 Followers
 · 
133 Views
 · 
2 Downloads
  • Source
    • "Second, setting, participants, demographic data, co-medication e.g. can limit the generalizability of the trial results [4], [5]. There is also increasing evidence of selective reporting in clinical trial findings, with some recent examples in pharmacologic treatment for depression and other psychiatric disorders [6], [7], [8], [9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration. Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended. We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number. Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration.
    PLoS ONE 10/2013; 8(10):e75995. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0075995 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This essay examines the effects of commercialization on education with particular focus on corporatization of academic research. This trend results from a business model of education, which I identify as profit‐based inquiry. I contrast profit‐based inquiry with Nicholas Maxwell's conception of wisdom‐based inquiry and conclude that the business model fails to achieve enduring value and results in a promotional or ideological emphasis rather than one that stresses the importance of critical rationalism. In order to make my case for this failure, I focus attention on the current state of commercialization in research of medicines.
    London Review of Education 07/2007; 5(2):131-142. DOI:10.1080/14748460701440665
Show more

Preview

Download
2 Downloads
Available from