Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T11:12:07.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Archeology of Corruption in Medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2018

MILES LITTLE ,
WENDY LIPWORTH  and
IAN KERRIDGE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Corruption is a word used loosely to describe many kinds of action that people find distasteful. We prefer to reserve it for the intentional misuse of the good offices of an established social entity for private benefit, posing as fair trading. The currency of corruption is not always material or financial. Moral corruption is all too familiar within churches and other ostensibly beneficent institutions, and it happens within medicine and the pharmaceutical industries. Corrupt behavior reduces trust, costs money, causes injustice, and arouses anger. Yet it persists, despite all efforts since the beginnings of societies. People who act corruptly may lack conscience and empathy in the same way as those with some personality disorders. Finding ways to prevent corruption from contaminating beneficent organizations is therefore likely to be frustratingly difficult. Transparency and accountability may go some way, but the determined corruptor is unlikely to feel constrained by moral and reporting requirements of this kind. Punishment and redress are complicated issues, unlikely to satisfy victims and society at large. Both perhaps should deal in the same currency—material or social—in which the corrupt dealing took place.

Keywords

corruptionpharmaceutical companiesmedicinepreventionpunishmentredress
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 525 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Blake, J. Scientific institutions since the Renaissance: their role in medical research. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 1957;101(1):31–62.Google Scholar

2. Hall, MA, Dugan, E, Zheng, B, Mishra, AK. Trust in physicians and medical institutions: What it is, can it be measured, and does it matter? The Millbank Quarterly 2001;79(4):613–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Meyerson, DE. Interpretations of stress in institutions: the cultural production of ambiguity and burnout. Administrative Science Quarterly 1994;39(4):628–53.Google Scholar

4. Tetlock, PE. Losing our religion: on the precariousness of precise normative standards in complex accountability systems. In: Kramer, RM, Neale, MA, eds. Power and Influence in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1988:121–44.Google Scholar

5. Campbell, JL. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review 2007;32(3):946–67.Google Scholar

6. Kane, K, Montgomery, K. A framework for understanding dysempowerment in organizations. Human Resource Management 1998;37(3–4):263–75.Google Scholar

7. Miceli, MP, Near, JP. Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology 1985;38(3):525–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Scott, WR. Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society 2008;37(5):427–42.Google Scholar

9. Mingers, J, White, L. A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research 2010;207(3):1147–61.Google Scholar

10. Oliver, AL, Montgomery, K. A system cybernetic approach to the dynamics of individual and organizational-level trust. Human Relations 2001;54(8):1045–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Parsons T. The Social System. London: Routledge; 1991 (originally published, 1951).

12. See note 8, Scott 2008.

13. Relman AS. Lessons from the Darsee affair. New England Journal of Medicine 1983;308(23):1415–7.

14. Lang, S. Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case. Ethics & Behavior 1993;3(1):3–72.Google Scholar

15. The Baltimore affair involved Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore in disputes with coworker Thereza Iminashi-Kiri, and postdoctoral laboratory researcher Margaret O’Toole in the late 1980s. Claims made by Iminashi-Kiri could not be replicated by O’Toole, who found what seemed to be fabrication of evidence in laboratory note books. The episode is reviewed at length in Judson FH. The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.; 2004.

16. Bourdieu, P. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.Google Scholar

17. Boddy, CR. Corporate psychopaths, bullying and unfair supervision in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 2010;100:367–79.Google Scholar

18. Caponecchia, C, Sun, AYZ, Wyatt, A. Psychopaths at work? Implications of lay persons’ use of labels and behavioural criteria for psychopathy. Journal of Business Ethics 2012;107(4):399–408.Google Scholar

19. Denda, K. A clinical study on non-verbal psychotherapy in childhood and adolescence: a proposed classification and psychopathological considerations. Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi 1992;67:659–73.Google Scholar

20. Deresiewicz, W. Capitalists and other psychopaths. New York Times, 2012; May 13.Google Scholar

21. Stevens G, Deuling J, Armenakis A. Successful psychopaths: are they unethical decision-makers and why? Journal of Business Ethics 2012;105(2):139–49.

22. See note 18, Caponecchia et al. 2012.

23. Board BJ, Fritzon K. Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime & Law 2005;11(1):17–32.

24. Levinas E. Ethics as first philosophy. In: Hand S, ed. The Levinas Reader. Oxford: Blackwell; 1989, at 84.

25. Yank V, Tuohy CV, Logan AC, Bravata DM, Staudenmayer K, Eisenhut R, et al. Systematic review: benefits and harms of in-hospital use of recombinant Factor VIIa for off-label indications. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011(154):529–40.

26. Kearney PM, Baigent C, Godwin J, Halls H, Emberson JR, Patrono C. Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials. British Medical Journal 2006;332(7553):1302–8.

27. Dutton DB. Worse than the Disease: Pitfalls of Medical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.

28. Thomas SB, Quinn SC. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community. American Journal of Public Health 1991;81(11):1498–505.

29. See note 13, Relman 1983.

30. Engler RL, Covell JW, Friedman PJ, Kitcher PS, Peters RM. Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research. New England Journal of Medicine 1987;317(22):1383–9.

31. Both Darsee and Slutsky published many papers containing fabricated data in the 1970s and 80s. Baltimore and Iminashi-Kiri have been mentioned earlier. For detail on most of the cases mentioned in this article, see note 15, Judson 2004.

32. Sass J. Credibility of scientists: conflict of interest and bias. Environmental Health Perspectives 2006;114(3):A147–8.

33. Sismondo S. How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Social Science & Medicine 2008a;66(9):1909–14.

34. Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2008b;29(2):109–13.

35. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;338:101–6.

36. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. Journal of the American Medical Association 2003;290(2):252–5.

37. Steinman MA, Shlipak MG, McPhee SJ. Of principles and pens: attitudes and practices of medicine house staff toward pharmaceutical industry promotions. The American Journal of Medicine 2001;110(7):551–7.

38. See note 15, Judson 2004, at 142–4.

39. See note 14, Lang 1993.

40. See note 15, Judson 2004, at 112–22, 128–31.

41. Olivieri NF. Patients’ health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research. Science and Engineering Ethics 2003;9(1):29–41.

42. Betty Dong conducted research in the late 1980s on a particular brand of thyroxine, whose manufacturers claimed that it exhibited definite advantages over comparable preparations. Her findings demonstrated no such advantages. The sponsoring company held up publication of her report, and published their own paper in the meantime, which was interpreted as showing advantages for their product. Dong was accused of poor science and statistics. She was vindicated by subsequent publication of her findings. Dong BJ, Hauck WW, Gambertoglio JG, Gee L, White JR, Bubp JL, et al. Bioequivalence of generic and brand-name levothyroxine products in the treatment of hypothyroidism. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997;277(15):1205–13.

43. See note 42, Dong et al 1997.

44. See note 15, Judson 2004, at 193–8.

45. Mauss M. The Gift. London: Routledge; 1988.

46. Malinowski B. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. New York: Oxford University Press; 1960.

47. Darlington PJ. Altruism: its characteristics and evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1978;75(1):385–9.

48. Ekeh PP. Social exchange theory. In: Outhwaite W, Bottomore T, eds. The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought. Oxford: Blackwell; 1994:593–5.

49. Gouldner AW. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 1960;25(2):161–78.

50. Bero LA, Rennie D. Influences on the quality of published drug studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1996;12(02):209–37.

51. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance—clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New England Journal of Medicine 2000;342(20):1539–44.

52. Davidson R. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1986;1(3):155–8.

53. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. British Medical Journal 2003;326(7400):1167–70.

54. Angell M. Drug companies & doctors: a story of corruption. The New York Review of Books, 56, 1, 2009; available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237 (last accessed 23 Feb 2018).

55. See note 33, Sismondo 2008a.

56. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? Journal of the American Medical Association 2000;283(3):373–80.

57. See note 37, Steinman et al. 2001.

58. See note 36, Dana, Loewenstein 2003.

59. See note 50, Bero and Rennie 1996.

60. See note 52, Davidson 1986.

61. See note 53, Lexchin et al. 2003.

62. See note 33, Sismondo 2008a.

63. See note 37, Steinman et al. 2001.

64. See note 15, Judson 2004, passim.

65. Camerer C. Gifts as economic signals and social symbols. The American Journal of Anthropology 1988;94(Suppl.):S180–S214.

66. Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Medical Education 2010;44(4):358–66.

67. Smith R. Beyond conflict of interest: transparency is the key. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1998;317(7154):291–2.

68. Daniel A. Medicine and the State: Professional Autnomy and Public Accountability. Sydney: Allen and Unwin; 1990.

69. Frink DD, Klimoski RJ. Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. In: Ferris GR, ed. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Stamford, CT: Jai Press; 1998:1–51.

70. Jennings BM, Staggers N. The language of outcomes. Advances in Nursing Science 1998;20(4):72–80.

71. O’Connor KM. Groups and solos in context: the effects of accountability on team negotiation. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 1997;72(3):384–407.

72. Pole C. Assessing, recording and testing achievement: some issues in accountability, professionalism and education markets. In: Shorrocks-Taylor D, ed. Directions in Educational Psychology. London: Whurr Publishers; 1998:156–69.

73. Aidt TS. Economic analysis of corruption: a survey. The Economic Journal 2003;113(491):F632–F52.

74. Andwig JC. The economics of corruption: A survey. Studi Economici 2001;43(1):57–94.

75. Mauro P. Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1995;110(3):681–712.

76. Miller S. Corruption. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008; available at \url{http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/corruption/;2008 (last accessed 23 Feb 2018).

77. Nye J. Corruption and political development: a cost-benefit analysis. American Political Science Review 1967;51(June):417–29.

78. Duff RA, Garland D. A Reader on Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

79. Primoratz I. Justifying Legal Punishment. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press; 1989.

80. Von Hirsch A, Ashworth A, Roberts JV. Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy. Oxford: Hart Publishers; 1998.

81. Von Hirsch A, Ashworth A. Not not just deserts: a response to Braithwaite and Pettit. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1992;12(1):83–98.

82. See note 23, Board, Fritzon 2005.

83. See note 32, Sass 2006.

84. See note 37, Steinman et al. 2001.

85. See note 34, Sismondo 2008b.

86. See note 54, Angell 2009, at 56.

87. Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? New England Journal of Medicine 2000;342(20):1516–8.

88. Entwistle VA, Watt IS. Treating patients as persons: a capabilities approach to support delivery of person-centered care. American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(8):29–39.

89. Miles A, Mezzich JE. The care of the patient and the soul of the clinic: person centered medicine as an emergent model of modern clinical practice. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 2011a;1(2):207–22.

90. Miles A, Mezzich JE. Person-centered medicine: advancing methods, promoting implementation. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 2011b;1(3):423–8.

91. See note 56, Wazana 2000.

92. Kleinke JD. The price of progress: prescription drugs in the health care market. Health Affairs 2001;20(5):43–60.

93. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. New England Journal of Medicine 2009;360(15):1477–9.