There’s no doubt that doctors’ financial relationships with industry could be used — fairly or otherwise — to question their credibility.
In fact, this happened last week when Melbourne endocrinologist Professor Henry Burger and overseas colleagues published a re-evaluation of the results of the of the Million Women Study, disputing claims it showed a causal link between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and increased breast cancer risk.
Predictably enough, the paper sparked a fiery debate. Some experts welcomed the finding; others disputed it and pointed to the authors’ financial relationships with manufacturers.
Dr Andrew Penman, of the NSW Cancer Council, told ABC radio the authors were “playing the game” of seeding doubt about well established scientific findings, “and you really do have to question their interest, given their association with the industry”.
No doubt, the HRT debate still has some distance to run, but the demand for greater public disclosure means doctors in all fields of medicine are likely to find themselves grappling with more of these kinds of conflict of interest allegations.
We humans are not very good at detecting our own biases, though we can be hyper-vigilant about those of others.
Studies in the past have suggested most doctors do not believe their own decisions are affected by industry gifts or payments — though they tend to be more sceptical about their colleagues’ ability to remain impartial.
http://www.mjainsight.com.au/view?post=jane-mccredie-bias-in-eye-of-beholder&post_id=7768&cat=comment
