So it really comes down to how small or large the number is of actors who do “bad” things, which will, in turn, depend on the situation. As I understand the DOJ reports, the Neurontin case, as decided in 2004, involved an extensive network at W-L, and would be fairly described as something approaching company-wide. The recent Pfizer cases (with roots in W-L and Pharmacia) may, indeed, be different.

Anyway, I do think of ethics-in-context, which is why I emphasis the latter when the former is raised by itself.

I think you inferred more into Kindler’s statement than he meant to imply. He does acknowledge bad actions, not just by pharma, but by Big Business overall (remember the time and place of this speech). Importantly, he goes on to say, “Now sometimes this criticism is warranted; sometimes it’s not.” To me, the main takeaway from this speech is that bad actions have to be acknowledged and, the consequences of those actions (lost of trust), have to be dealt with. Are there systemic issues to be dealt with? I think Kindler would say, “yes” but with qualifications. The system makes it too easy for a small number of bad actors to have too great an impact.

As you can read, my previous statement was a reaction to continual complaints by some posters who always find fault in pharma.

Atlex

Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine a statement like Kindler’s emerging from academia or even a different industry. Specifically this:

“Across society people believe that the rules meant to bring order to society instead are being manipulated to benefit the rule-makers. It has become so widespread that having questionable ethics is often seen as the norm. In fact, doing the right thing now seems quaint and old-fashioned when so many people seem to get away with doing the wrong thing.

People have had enough, and the backlash is real. Its fueling demands for more restrictions on businesses and on government…

Now sometimes this criticism is warranted; sometimes it’s not. But when the majority of people don’t trust you, they will find a way to force you to change. So this is where we are. And it’s up to us to earn back the trust that we’ve lost.

It will take a lot of time and energy, and it won’t happen overnight. But we have to start by letting people know that we hear them. This starts by acknowledging where we’ve gone wrong, showing that we’re making real changes…”

Obviously, this is not some blanket “wea culpa.” There are plenty of qualifications and generalizations beyond pharma. But is it your interpretation that, when Jeff Kindler refers to criticisms that are “warranted,” and “acknowledging where we’ve gone wrong,” he is referring only to acknowledging “a few bad actors”? Or do you think he means, and would you agree, that there are also systemic issues that need to be addressed?

As a former marketing director myself and someone who chooses to stay in pharma (albeit in a different capacity), let me assure you that the vast majority of marketers (and everyone else) in pharma have a conscience and a strong moral compass. Just like every other industry (academics, priesthood, journalism, etc.), there are a few bad actors. My observation is that your vehement anti-pharma crusade probably has more to do with your own (perhaps guilty) conscience rather than an evangelical compunction to spread the gospel.

Atlex

One of the most revealing documents to emerge in recent years was that one, via the WSJ, from an AZ manager wondering out loud whether or not to “bury” (his word) another study on Seroquel. Among the reasons not to–he felt they had a relatively good ethical reputation; if they did do it their competitors would “out” them; etc.

Among the reasons to bury–everyone else was.

Conscience?…”apres vous, Alphonse.”

It is about buying their way into patient groups, and national organizations and manipulating the government and market to the detriment of patients.

It is about tampering with clinical trial data and making claims based on corrupted clinical trial data.

It is really about crimes against humanity; taking the most vulnerable of our society and using them as profit centers.

Now they are finding religion? We are in trouble. Religion is the last place they need to look to fix what they have worked so hard to break.

Ethics - they need to install and listen to an ethics committee that examines and questions the marketing department programs.

So pharma are you listening? Do not find religion, find a conscience! Or at least a good moral compass……

You have expressed it perfectly…sickness sells…wellness doesn’t. It’s become a sickness industry. Healthcare reform? It’s not going to happen. The chairs just got rearranged, that’s all. Pharma and the fat cats (a whole array of parasites, e.g., insurance companies), will continue to gorge on the public. Don’t hold your breath, waiting for someone to say, “wait, this is immoral”. We are all “sitting ducks”. Drug safety and the public “health” have been savaged. It’s a disgrace.