Behaviorism and Mental Health

Alternative perspective on psychiatry's so-called mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Tell Your Story
  • Submit Your Story
  • Moderation Policy

The Ethics of Disclosing Financial Relationships

August 30, 2013 By Phil Hickey |

Recently, Carl Elliott posted a link to a statement written by Jonathan Moreno, PhD, a renowned bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Moreno’s statement was in reference to an Oregon court case.  The Oregon Department of Justice had accused two cardiologists of concealing information from patients.  Apparently the cardiologists had put heart implants into patients without informing the patients that they (the cardiologists) had financial ties to the manufacturer of the implants.

These kinds of financial entanglements have become fairly common in medicine generally, and especially in psychiatry, where, in my view, it has been a major force in psychiatry’s drive to medicalize all human problems, and in the widespread corruption of psychiatric research.

Biotronik, the manufacturer of the implant, apparently asked Dr. Moreno to write an opinion for the court case.  In this statement, dated July 23, 2013, Dr. Moreno pointed out that the cardiologists had no “…legal, regulatory or ethical duty…” to make the disclosures to the patients.

Essentially, Dr. Moreno’s position rests on the fact that the disclosure was not required by any written law, regulation, or ethical code.  Therefore, he concludes, there was no ethical breach or wrongdoing.

The logic here is that professional people can do whatever they like provided there’s no written rule prohibiting it.  This strikes me as a rather narrow way of looking at the field of ethics.

In general medicine, there is a legitimate assumption on the part of the patient that the physician will prescribe the treatment which, in his honest, unbiased view, is the best for the patient.  If the physician has a financial interest in treatment A but not in treatment B, there will inevitably be a tendency to prescribe A, even though B might be more advantageous in the particular circumstances.

In the case of Biotronik and the cardiologists, it may be that Biotronik’s implant was the best choice for the patients concerned.  But maybe it wasn’t.  In such circumstances, the physician needs to guard against even the possibility  of corruption, and the best way to accomplish this is through full disclosure to the patient.  And this disclosure should mention other options besides Biotronik’s product, and an honest appraisal of the different products.

The fact that there’s no written rule requiring physicians to make such disclosures seems to me a matter of secondary importance.  Full disclosures of this sort should be made in all branches of medicine, just because it’s the right thing to do.

On August 1, 2013, the two cardiologists reached an out-of-court settlement with the State of Oregon.  Under the terms of the settlement, the cardiologists admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed to pay $25,000 each, and also agreed to inform future patients of their financial ties.

There’s a detailed account of the case on OregonLive.com.  Carl Elliott, bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, is quoted in this article:

“You don’t need to be an ethicist to see that it’s wrong to take the money and hide that fact from your patients.”

Who could disagree with that, especially given the extent to which psychiatry has been corrupted by pharmaceutical money?  Besides, what objection can there be to making full disclosures?

Filed Under: A Behavioral Approach to Mental Disorders Tagged With: conflict of interest

About Phil Hickey

I am a licensed psychologist, presently retired. I have worked in clinical and managerial positions in the mental health, corrections, and addictions fields in the United States and England. My wife Nancy and I have been married since 1970 and have four grown children.

 

Recent Articles

  • AND FINALLY
  • RESPONDING TO DR. MOREHEAD’S SECOND ATTACK ON ANTI-PSYCHIATRY
  • DR. PIES STILL TRYING TO EXCULPATE PSYCHIATRY FOR THE CHEMICAL IMBALANCE THEORY OF DEPRESSION
  • RESPONDING TO DANIEL MOREHEAD, MD,  PSYCHIATRY’S LATEST CHAMPION
  • PROBLEMS AT A COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH CENTER
  • THE ENIGMA-MDD PROJECT: SEARCHING FOR THE NEUROPATHOLOGY OF “MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER”
  • ILLNESSES OR LOOSE COLLECTIONS OF VAGUELY DESCRIBED PROBLEMS?
  • WHY IS PSYCHIATRY SO DEFENSIVE ABOUT CRITICISM OF PSYCHIATRY? Part 2
  • WHY IS PSYCHIATRY SO DEFENSIVE ABOUT CRITICISM OF PSYCHIATRY? Part 1
  • ADDRESSING THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF MENTAL HEALTH – OR PERHAPS NOT

The phrase "mental health" as used in the name of this website is simply a term of convenience. It specifically does not imply that the human problems embraced by this term are illnesses, or that their absence constitutes health. Indeed, the fundamental tenet of this site is that there are no mental illnesses, and that conceptualizing human problems in this way is spurious, destructive, disempowering, and stigmatizing.

Disclaimer

The purpose of this website is to provide a forum where current practices and ideas in the mental health field can be critically examined and discussed. It is not possible in this kind of context to provide psychological help or advice to individuals who may read this site, and nothing written here should be construed in this manner. Readers seeking psychological help should consult a qualified practitioner in their own local area. They should explain their concerns to this person and develop a trusting working relationship. It is only in a one-to-one relationship of this kind that specific advice should be given or taken.

Privacy Policy

Popular Topics…

ADHD akathisia alcohol alcohol/drugs antidepressants antipsychotics anxiety benzodiazepines bipolar books worth reading case study chemical imbalance theory conflict of interest dealing with problems of daily living dementia dependence depression drug DSM DSM-5 ECT expansion of psychiatric turf IF THEY'RE NOT ILLNESSES WHAT ARE THEY? involuntary commitment Mad in America major tranquilizers myth of chemical imbalance myth of mental illness neuroleptics over-medicalization of everyday life parenting pharmaceutical industry placebo posttraumatic stress disorder Psychiatric "spin" research corruption schizophrenia shock "treatment" side effects somatic symptom disorder SSRI's suicide survivors of psychiatry tardive dyskinesia violence

© 2009–2023