Is it ethical to sell medicines in the same way as you sell soap ? A trivially put , but troubling question. Consider the arguments for and against.
The problem in the medical industry is that the consumer, in most cases, is absolutely ignorant and is completely reliant on a doctor's opinion. But it is not the doctor who is paying - it is the consumer. At the time of consumption, the consumer is usually also not in a frame of mind to make rational , sensible choices. He is at his most vulnerable and therefore it can be argued that freedom of choice, a basic underpinning of capitalisim is, by definition, a contradiction in terms when it comes to a medical product
The basics of the medical industry is predicated on a few facts
- New discoveries are extremely costly - be it a drug or a medical device.
- Most nations grant a patent for a new discovery which enables the inventor to enjoy a monopoly for a fairly long time
- Once the patent expires, the product is subject to the same pressures of competition, demand and supply as any other product in any other industry.
- There is very little product differentiation that is possible - formulations being legally regulated. Consequently, distribution and selling become the primary marketing tool for companies.
The industry is also peculiar in that the consumer is forced to consume - if it were possible, the consumer would prefer not to consume any medical product at all. Given that it is the doctor who "forces" the consumer to consume, the backlash of customer dissatisfaction is also on the doctor - at the very least a virulent negative opinion against the doctor and more likely in the US for example, a lawsuit.
If that is so, is it correct for aggressive sales practices, usually found in most industries, to flourish in the medical industry as well ? Most of the aggression on sales is towards doctors which raises even more ethical questions - should the doctors be influenced so heavily in their decision making. Every major drug company has been caught in questionable sales practices. GlaxoSmithKline has been accused of bribery of medical professionals in China. Eli Lilly was charged with the same thing in Brazil. Pfizer sponsored incentive trips for Bulgarian doctors - euphemism for holidaying in Greece. Glaxo again took US medical professionals for "conferences" in Hawaii. Amgen offered discounts to doctors to shift from competing products but allowed them a way to claim full price from health insurers. Johnson & Johnson has been fined a colossal $2.2 billion for marketing practices stretching over 10 years in the US. Is anybody still left who hasn't been fined ?
Almost every patient who sees a doctor in India complains of over testing and over prescription. Aggressive sales practices of medical companies and hospitals have certainly contributed to this "disease". One doctor I know, quit a hospital, because he was given a target for generating revenues through tests and prescriptions, regardless of whether the patient needed it or not.
While it would be easy to condemn all sales practices, these are a fundamental and essential part of the capitalist system. We would not bat an eyelid on any of them in other industries like telecom or clothing, or whatever. Its because the industry is the medical industry that there is unease. Although die hard loony leftists will argue against this, it is undeniable that capitalism and free markets have made incredible medical advances possible. If you simply ban all selling , and therefore dampen the means of achieving the profit motive, the industry would inevitably stagnate and then decline.
So where should the line be drawn. What is the difference between educating a doctor on a new drug or the effectiveness of an existing drug and pushing him to prescribe it. We would, of course, encourage a "soft sell" but would frown on a "hard sell" - the difficulty is to determine what is "soft" and what is "hard". These are extremely tough issues on which there isn't an easy answer. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't grapple with, or debate about, them.