Big Pharma Under Fire for Reverse Plagiarism

The pharmaceutical industry is coming under fire for allegedly hiring ghostwriters (writers who work for pay, but not a byline) to write positive reports/analysis of clinical tests on drugs with possible efficacy issues - and then recruiting notable doctors to stick their names on it. This issue has been bandied about for months and suspected for longer, but now U.S. Senator Charles Grassley from Iowa is renewing the fight.

Is the fact that this possibility has surfaced doesn’t surprise me troubling? Even before I declared my concentration in health/medicine reporting, I was aware of the corruption and rampant abuse of power by what is referred to as Big Pharma. Government deregulation and regulation on a slew of business and healthcare policy issues end up benefiting these corporate entites, whether allowing unapproved drugs and drugs with possible side effects to go on the market before they are fully vetted by the FDA or removing/weakening price caps on prescription drugs so that Pharma can charge more for less and profit from donations of life-saving drugs to Third World countries. And of course there are the deceptive drug ads that have had varying levels of regulation over the last two decades.

Journal articles are an important “first draft” introducing new developments in medicine to the public and are among the sources used by health professionals and medical reporters in their story research. Doctors and reporters already look at journal articles with a wary eye, and the likely possibility of journal articles being fabricated can be even more detrimental to the trust people place in such written work.

And that doctors would sign on to put their names on these works they haven’t written - even if they agree with what is being written - is egregious and says they condone this deceptive practice. Like the regulations placed on drug advertisements, all that would be needed is for the doctors to acknowledge that this IS NOT their work. It would be better if it were, but if this is the way they want to roll, then disclose your affiliations.

It is tantamount to plagiarism.

A Journalist's Direction: Divining Rod or Diversion?

(previously published here on September 25, 2008)

Like musicians and strains of melody, reporters generally have an “ear” for newsworthy events and reporting opportunities. Whether it’s being at the scene of a car accident and interviewing witnesses (after pulling people out of the wrecking, per Journalistic Ethics discussions) or chasing a tornado, or pursuing a hesitant, but important, source for a story, journalists tend toward a knack of blending curiosity and intuition. We’re reporters and we’re hungry for stories!

But sometimes reporting needs to take a backburner to our humanity, as well as to practicality.

This week, an elderly woman had a heart attack on the city bus I was taking home. Two teenaged girls sitting across from her immediately told the driver to stop and proceeded to call 911. Since the woman kept saying she lives just a few blocks away, I went over and, loathing standing by helplessly and wanting to do something for her but having 911 already taken, asked her if anyone was home to call. She said yes and I called her husband, Alex. Within 10 minutes, one set of EMTs, two fire trucks, the ambulance and Alex arrived. I watched them take her off the bus in a wheelchair, then got off the bus, made sure the EMTs didn’t need me to fill out a statement, and went home.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

But what kept bothering me for hours after was that my internal monologue/reaction to the woman having a heart attack was - at least in my mind - seflish: I wanted not just to help her, but to be a part of the action. The human side of me wanted to do all I could to help and the inquisitive side didn’t want to be left behind, not knowing and engaging in the details. So while this was not newsworthy material, but there was still a part of me that wanted to question passengers and EMTs to get into their heads, too. And now I felt somewhat ashamed.

But why be ashamed?

So my questions are: is this story an example of simply normal inquisitiveness and desire to help or could a journalist be so entrenched in a desire for answers and context that they get drawn to stories that aren’t stories?

NATIONAL:MEDICAL ETHICS: Hundreds Protest Psychologists' Role In Torture

(previously published here at www.thebulletin.us)

By: Heather J. Chin, The Bulletin

08/18/2008

Outside the American Psychological Association's 116th annual convention this weekend in Boston, between 100 and 200 psychologists rallied together to protest the ongoing role of psychologists in military interrogations, particularly amid concerns of torture.

The demonstrators are among those mental health professionals who have criticized the long-standing relationship as a violation of their code of ethics. They are urging the implementation of an APA ban on its members participating in such military and intelligence operations.

A resolution petition has been submitted and the 148,000 members of the APA are submitting their ballot votes over the next month, with a decision due by late September. If passed, it would expand on the APA's existing policy, passed last year, which some say is adequate.

Some psychologists and health professionals maintain that without psychologists' participation, the interrogations would be more harmful and go unchecked and unaccounted for.

The current policy prohibits psychologists from taking part either directly or indirectly in 19 coercive procedures often considered forms of torture, including waterboarding, the use of hoods, forced nudity, stress positions, rape, mock execution, use of drugs, and exposure to extreme temperatures. The policy says this list is not exhaustive and also urges the U.S. government to discontinue such practices.

"Torture and abuse are always unethical and prohibited ... the question is how to best fight an administration policy that permits such practices," APA's ethics office director Stephen Behnke said to the Boston Globe.

In a statement released earlier this year, the APA describes its position that "No psychologist - APA member or not - should be directly or indirectly involved in any form of detention interrogation that could lead to psychological or physical harm to a detainee ... [and] doing so would be a clear violation of the profession's ethical standards."

At Saturday's rally, where people held signs that declared "Do No Harm" and "Abolish Torture," Nathaniel Raymond of Physicians for Human Rights, a Washington-based health professional organization, maintained at Saturday's rally that "it's about restoration of the values that define us. ... It's about who we are in the world."

The group's director, Leonard Rubenstein, also suggested that the APA should note the American Medical Association's policy of prohibiting physicians from participating in interrogations and divulging whether a prisoner's health would sustain torture.

Other groups that participated in the rally included professional coalitions such as Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union.


Heather J. Chin can be reached at hchin@thebulletin.us

©The Evening Bulletin 2008