48 research outputs found
Dear DTCA, Please Donât Deceive Me, Donât Play on My Fantasy
Travail crĂ©atif / Creative WorkFace aÌ la publiciteÌ de meÌdicaments, que pouvons-nous? Est-ce que la publiciteÌ directes au consommateur (DTCA) est bienfaisant aÌ notre eÌgard en preÌsentant de façon objective un produit ou cherche-t-elle aÌ nous convaincre que câest deÌfinitivement le bon traitement, la bonne approche, pour nous soigner? AÌ travers cette chanson, le but est de faire vivre lâexpeÌrience dâun patient qui est sujet aÌ de la publiciteÌ, en inteÌgrant dans les strophes les principaux enjeux eÌthiques que cela souleÌve.In the face of drugs advertising, what can we do? Is Direct- to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) designed to be beneficial by objectively presenting a product or are they rather seeking to convince us that their product is patently good? Through this song, the goal is to live the experience of a patient who is subject to drug advertising, by integrating into the stanzas the main ethical issues raised by advertising
Research Ethics and Commercial Drug Development: When Integrity Threatens Profitability
Ătude de cas / Case studyCe cas, baseÌ sur des expeÌriences personnelles ainsi que sur celles trouveÌes dans la litteÌrature, met en eÌvidence la tension deÌlicate aÌ laquelle sont confronteÌes les entreprises voueÌes au deÌveloppement des meÌdicaments soit dâeÌquilibrer lâinteÌgriteÌ de la recherche et leur rentabiliteÌ.This case, based on personal experiences and on those found in the literature, highlights the delicate tension faced by drug development companies having to balance research integrity and their profitability
Enjeux Ă©thiques des communications directes aux patients par les compagnies pharmaceutiques
Il est consensuel dâaffirmer que les patients devraient recevoir des informations Ă©quilibrĂ©es et crĂ©dibles leur permettant de prendre des dĂ©cisions Ă©clairĂ©es sur la meilleure façon de gĂ©rer leur santĂ©. Les sources ne sont cependant pas toujours fiables et la recherche dâinformations Ă©quilibrĂ©es, impartiales et comprĂ©hensibles peut ĂȘtre particuliĂšrement difficile. GrĂące Ă la richesse de son expĂ©rience en matiĂšre de marketing et ses ressources financiĂšres importantes (qui dĂ©passent de loin celles des rĂ©gulateurs nationaux), lâindustrie pharmaceutique est lâun des acteurs majeurs en ce qui a trait aux communications directes aux consommateurs des mĂ©dicaments (CDCM). Cependant, le marketing pharmaceutique est souvent considĂ©rĂ© comme un vecteur transmettant des informations biaisĂ©es destinĂ©es Ă accroĂźtre la consommation de mĂ©dicaments, au point oĂč dans les derniĂšres annĂ©es, nombreux sont les appels lancĂ©s pour plus de rĂ©gulation gouvernementale et pour que lâindustrie autorĂ©gule mieux ses pratiques.
Bien que les CDCM soient gĂ©nĂ©ralement prĂ©sentĂ©es de maniĂšre accessible et comprĂ©hensible, les pratiques des compagnies pharmaceutiques soulĂšvent (et sont influencĂ©es par) une tension importante entre deux impĂ©ratifs conflictuels que sont la rĂ©ponse aux: 1) attentes sociales pour lâinformation et lâautonomisation des consommateurs; et 2) attentes commerciales voulant que le marketing stimule la vente des mĂ©dicaments et qui servent de rĂ©fĂ©rence pour Ă©valuer la pratique des marketeurs pharmaceutiques. Ces deux impĂ©ratifs justifient simultanĂ©ment les pratiques pharmaceutiques, chacun auprĂšs de diffĂ©rentes parties prenantes: le premier pour les rĂ©gulateurs et les dĂ©fenseurs des patients, et le second pour les acteurs et les actionnaires de lâindustrie. Sans ces deux impĂ©ratifs, la promotion des mĂ©dicaments nâaurait tout simplement pas lieu: lâindustrie nâinvestirait pas temps, argent et Ă©nergie, sâil nây avait pas de gains financiers, et les pratiques nâauraient pas de lĂ©gitimitĂ© sociale et rĂ©glementaire, si elles ne possĂ©daient pas de qualitĂ©s informationnelles.
La valeur sociale accordĂ©e aux CDCM, et la rĂ©ponse rĂ©gulatoire, varient grandement selon les juridictions. Seuls deux pays de lâOrganisation de coopĂ©ration et de dĂ©veloppement Ă©conomiques (OCDE), les Ătats-Unis et la Nouvelle-ZĂ©lande, ont une approche permissive et sont plus enclins Ă reconnaĂźtre une qualitĂ© informationnelle aux CDCM. La plupart des autres pays de lâOCDE (le Canada inclus) ont une approche plutĂŽt prohibitive et ne permettent que les communications de sensibilisation aux maladies, de recherche dâaide et dâautres non directement liĂ©es Ă la vente dâun mĂ©dicament. Bien quâils doivent coexister, les deux impĂ©ratifs sont nĂ©anmoins souvent difficiles Ă concilier compte tenu des objectifs de commercialisation trĂšs Ă©levĂ©s, dĂ©coulant des attentes des marchĂ©s financiers, que les marketeurs pharmaceutiques se doivent dâatteindre. Il nâest donc pas surprenant que les activitĂ©s de marketing prĂ©sentent lâune des questions Ă©thiques les plus discutĂ©es et les plus difficiles dans le monde contemporain des affaires.
Ceci, bien sĂ»r, soulĂšve beaucoup de questions en ce qui concerne la gestion et la rĂ©solution appropriĂ©es des problĂšmes dâĂ©thique liĂ©s au marketing. Dans le cadre de cette thĂšse, ces considĂ©rations sont analysĂ©es Ă travers lâĂ©tude de quatre cas paradigmatiques permettant dâexpliciter les enjeux Ă©thiques et rĂ©gulatoires que soulĂšvent les CDCM. Chaque cas est ciblĂ© sur un dispositif communicationnel particulier et vise Ă dresser un portrait plus prĂ©cis de lâimpact de lâutilisation des CDCM, des considĂ©rations dâordre social et des implications en termes rĂ©glementaire et Ă©thique. Lâobjectif de chaque Ă©tude de cas, et de façon plus gĂ©nĂ©rale celui de la thĂšse, est dâĂ©mettre des recommandations quant Ă la responsabilitĂ© des principaux acteurs en vue de mieux encadrer la pratique marketing et baliser lâĂ©thique des CDCM.
In fine, lâanalyse des cas permet de mettre en exergue les dimensions Ă©thiques les plus porteuses dâun changement systĂ©mique dans la pratique du marketing pharmaceutique. Sont dĂšs lors ciblĂ©es les pratiques des employĂ©s de lâindustrie, pour qui des repĂšres sous la forme dâun engagement Ă©thique ainsi que lâesquisse dâun cadre Ă©thique sont proposĂ©s. LâidĂ©e est de cibler directement les acteurs qui, au quotidien, ont un rĂŽle majeur dans le dĂ©ploiement des CDCM, mais qui nâont largement jamais reçu de formation en Ă©thique leur permettant de comprendre les implications de leur pratique. Lâobjectif est dâaligner la pratique de marketing pharmaceutique aux attentes prosociales et dâĂ©quiper les marketeurs avec des repĂšres Ă©thiques clairs soutenant une pratique appropriĂ©e et morale du marketing pharmaceutique.It is widely accepted that patients should be provided with balanced and credible information so that they can make informed decisions about how best to manage their health. However, the sources are not always reliable and the search for balanced, impartial and comprehensible information can be particularly difficult. With a wealth of marketing experience and significant financial resources (far in excess of national regulators), the pharmaceutical industry is one of the major players in direct-to-consumer communications (DTCC). However, pharmaceutical marketing is often seen as a vehicle for transmitting biased information to increase drug consumption, to the extent that in recent years there have been many calls for more government regulation and for industry to better self-regulate its practices.
Although DTCC are generally presented in an accessible and comprehensible way, pharmaceutical company practices raise (and are influenced by) a significant tension between two conflicting imperatives: 1) social expectations for information and consumer empowerment; and 2) commercial expectations that marketing stimulate the sale of drugs and serve as a reference for evaluating the practice of pharmaceutical marketers. These two requirements simultaneously justify pharmaceutical practices, each with different stakeholders: the first for regulators and patient advocates, and the second for industry stakeholders and shareholders. Without these two imperatives, the promotion of medicines would simply not happen: the industry would not invest time, money and energy if there were no financial gains, and practices would not have social and regulatory legitimacy if they did not possess informational qualities.
The social value given to the DTCC, and the regulatory response, varies greatly between jurisdictions. Only two countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States and New Zealand, have a permissive approach and are more inclined to recognize the informational quality in DTCC. Most other OECD countries (including Canada) have a rather prohibitive approach and only allow for disease awareness, help seeking and other communications not directly related to the sale of a drug. Although they must coexist, the two imperatives are nevertheless often difficult to reconcile given the very high marketing targets, arising from the expectations of the financial markets, that pharmaceutical marketers must attain. It is therefore not surprising that marketing activities present one of the most controversial and challenging ethical issues in the contemporary business world.
This, of course, raises many questions regarding the proper management and resolution of ethical issues related to marketing. In the context of this thesis, these considerations are analyzed through the study of four paradigmatic cases as a means of explaining the ethical and regulatory issues raised by DTCC. Each case is targeted at a particular communication device and aims to provide a more accurate picture of the impact of DTCC, its social considerations and regulatory and ethical implications. The objective of each case study, and more generally that of the thesis, is to make recommendations concerning the responsibility of the main actors in order to better oversee marketing practices and to layout an ethics for DTCC.
Ultimately, the analysis of the cases highlights the ethical dimensions that are the most conducive to systemic change in the practice of pharmaceutical marketing. The cases are therefore focused on the practices of industry employees, for whom benchmarks are proposed, in the form of an ethical engagement and a preliminary ethical framework. The idea is to directly target the actors who, on a daily basis, play a major role in the deployment of DTCC, but who have never received training in ethics to enable them to understand the implications of their practice. The objective is to align the practice of pharmaceutical marketing with pro-social expectations and equip marketers with clear ethical benchmarks to support an appropriate and moral practice of pharmaceutical marketing
Réflexions sur la pratique de la bioéthique
Actes de colloque / Conference ProceedingsAĂBiUM, FAĂCUM, FICSUM, BioĂ©thiqueOnline, UniversitĂ© de MontrĂ©a
Art + BioĂ©thique : quand la recherche en bioĂ©thique quitte les murs de lâuniversitĂ©
Ăditoral / EditorialComment engager le public dans une reÌflexion sur les enjeux eÌthiques de notre eÌpoque? GuideÌs par cette question, nous avons deÌveloppeÌ une plateforme dâeÌchange avec la communauteÌ sur des questions bioeÌthiques aÌ travers une exposition artistique ainsi quâune seÌrie dâactiviteÌs de meÌdiation culturelle et scientifique pour les adultes et les enfants. Ce dossier theÌmatique dresse le compte-rendu de ce projet. Art + BioeÌthique repose sur une strateÌgie interdisciplinaire et collaborative qui a ameneÌ six jeunes chercheurs en bioeÌthique aÌ eÌtre jumeleÌs aÌ six artistes de la releÌve afin dâeÌchanger et dâapporter un nouvel eÌclairage sur une varieÌteÌ dâenjeux eÌthiques lieÌs aÌ la santeÌ. Ces duos artistes-chercheurs ont chacun deÌveloppeÌ une Ćuvre et un essai sur un theÌme commun. Notre objectif eÌtait de deÌcloisonner lâart et la recherche acadeÌmique en bioeÌthique afin de creÌer des formes hybrides et ineÌdites de diffusion, dâeÌducation, dâexpeÌrimentation et de rencontre. Lâexpression de la bioeÌthique aÌ travers lâart constitue une façon innovatrice de transmettre lâaspect sensible de tant de questions eÌthiques touchant aÌ la santeÌ et au bien-eÌtre. AÌ travers ses divers volets, Art+BioeÌthique a su rejoindre plusieurs centaines de personnes et les engager dans une reÌflexion eÌthique sur des enjeux au cĆur de notre socieÌteÌ.How should one engage the public in a reflection on the ethical issues of our time? Guided by this question, we developed a platform for exchange with the community on bioethical issues via an art exhibition and a series of cultural and scientific mediation activities for adults and children. This thematic dossier presents the report of the project. Art + Bioethics is based on an interdisciplinary and collaborative strategy that paired six young bioethics researchers with six emerging artists to share and shed new light on a variety of ethical issues related to health. These artist-researcher duos each developed a work and an essay on a common theme. Our goal was to break down barriers between art and academic research in bioethics and to create hybrids and new forms of dissemination, education, experimentation and meeting. The expression of bioethics through art represents an innovative way to transmit the sensitive aspect of so many ethical issues of health and well-being. Through its various components, Art + Bioethics was able to join several hundred people and engage in ethical reflection on issues that are at the heart of our society
Patients as Research Partners; How to Value their Perceptions, Contribution and Labor?
Citizen Science refers to the consultation, participation, engagement or involvement of the general public in research. Rationales for this interaction include increased public access and involvement of citizens in research, immersion of community values relevant to research, outreach, and educational potential with the public, and ultimately, the democratization of science. This paper focuses on the specific subset of citizen science that seeks to engage âpatient partnersâ in health research to gain the valuable experiential knowledge of those living with a disease. Greater patient engagement in research (PER) can provide researchers with insights about citizen values and needs relevant to determining research priorities, methodology, applications, and ethical parameters; this would ideally lead to more effective real-world applications. Over the last decade, projects involving patients partners in research (PPRs) have varied from mere tokenism and undervaluation to full involvement and empowerment of patient participants â the former, a subject of criticism, and the latter, promoted as an ideal. In this article, we will argue that the value of that experiential knowledge from PPRs should not only be acknowledged through its ongoing use, but also through recognition of participants who contribute to the creation and application of new knowledge. We will explore types of recognition that might be attributed to PPRs, including scientific recognition; financial recognition or reward; personal and altruistic recognition; and the beneficial outcomes of research applications. We also will consider whether such types of recognition could be applied to the broader field of citizen science