Skip to main content
Article
Drug Firms, the Codification of Diagnostic Categories, and Bias in Clinical Guidelines
Counseling and School Psychology Faculty Publication Series
  • Lisa Cosgrove, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Emily E. Wheeler, University of Massachusetts Boston
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
10-1-2013
Abstract
The profession of medicine is predicated upon an ethical mandate: first do no harm. However, critics charge that the medical profession’s culture and its public health mission are being undermined by the pharmaceutical industry’s wide-ranging influence. In this article, we analyze how drug firms influence psychiatric taxonomy and treatment guidelines such that these resources may serve commercial rather than public health interests. Moving beyond a conflict-of-interest model, we use the conceptual and normative framework of institutional corruption to examine how organized psychiatry’s dependence on drug firms has distorted science. We suggest that academic-industry relationships have led to the corruption of the evidence base upon which accurate diagnosis and sound treatment depend. We describe the current dependency corruption and argue that transparency alone is not a solution – and sometimes even produces iatrogenic effects. Furthermore, we argue that the corruption of the evidence base for diagnostic and practice guidelines renders obsolete the traditional informed consent process, and we offer suggestions for reforming this process.
Comments

Post-print, pre-published version of article published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 644–653, Fall 2013: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jlme.12074/abstract.

Community Engaged/Serving
No, this is not community-engaged.
Publisher
Wiley
Rights
© 2013 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.
Citation Information
Cosgrove, L. and Wheeler, E. E. (2013), Drug Firms, the Codification of Diagnostic Categories, and Bias in Clinical Guidelines. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41: 644–653. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12074