Big Pharma: a former insider's view

Considerations for applying bioethics norms to a biopharmaceutical industry setting

Background

The biopharmaceutical industry operates at the intersection of life sciences, clinical research, clinical care, public health, and business, which presents distinct operational and ethical challenges. This setting merits focused bioethics consideration to complement legal compliance and business ethics efforts. However, bioethics as applied to a biopharmaceutical industry setting often is construed either too broadly or too narrowly with little examination of its proper scope.

Main text

Any institution with a scientific or healthcare mission should engage bioethics norms to navigate ethical issues that arise from the conduct of biomedical research, delivery of clinical care, or implementation of public health programs. It is reasonable to assume that while bioethics norms must remain constant, their application will vary depending on the characteristics of a given setting. Context “specification” substantively refines ethics norms for a particular discipline or setting and is an expected, needed and progressive ethical activity. In order for this activity to be meaningful, the scope for bioethics application and the relevant contextual factors of the setting need to be delineated and appreciated. This paper defines biopharmaceutical bioethics as: the application of bioethics norms (concepts, principles, and rules) to the research, development, supply, commercialization, and clinical use of biopharmaceutical healthcare products. It provides commentary on this definition, and presents five contextual factors that need to be considered when applying bioethics norms to a biopharmaceutical industry setting: (1) dual missions; (2) timely and pragmatic guidance; (3) resource stewardship; (4) multiple stakeholders; and (5) operational complexity.

Conclusion

Understanding the scope of the biopharmaceutical enterprise and contextual factors of a biopharmaceutical industry setting is foundational for the application of bioethics norms. Establishing a common language and approach for biopharmaceutical bioethics will facilitate breadth and depth of discussion and subsequent implementation to benefit patients, the healthcare system and society.

Stakeholders in support systems for self-care for chronic illness: the gap between expectations and reality regarding their identity, roles and relationships

Background and objective

The spread of self‐care holds the promise of containing chronic illness burden. Falling within the framework of a FP7 collaborative research project, this paper reports the views of key informants from six countries regarding who the main stakeholders are at different levels in the support system for self‐care for patients with chronic illness (SSSC) and how they accomplish their role and collaborate.

Methods

90 Interviews with purposefully selected key informants from Bulgaria, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and United Kingdom were conducted. Interviews involved government and local authorities, politicians, academics, health professionals and private sector representatives. Interviewers followed an expert opinion‐based guide. Analysis involved a cross‐country examination with thematic analysis and framework method techniques.

Results

Key informants described the ideal SSSC as inclusive, interdependent and patient‐centred. The following main stakeholders in SSSC were identified: patients, governments, health‐care professionals, associations, private companies and the media. In the current SSSCs, collaboration among stakeholders within and across different levels was said to be lacking. Patients were seen as playing a passive subordinate role based on the following: their own attitudes; the paternalistic and medicalized attitudes of the health‐care professionals; their misrepresentation by patient associations; and their exposure to the damaging influences of media and industries.

Conclusions

Making SSSC patient‐centred constitutes the greatest challenge for European authorities. Strategies must be revised for promoting patient participation. They should undergo changes so as to promote industry and media social responsibility and patient association advocacy capacity.

Towards a genealogy of pharmacological practice

Following Foucault's work on disciplinary power and biopolitics, this article maps an initial cartography of the research areas to be traced by a genealogy of pharmacological practice. Pharmacology, as a practical activity, refers to the creation, production and sale of drugs/medication. This work identifies five lines of research that, although often disconnected from each other, may be observed in the specialized literature: (1) pharmaceuticalization; (2) regulation of the pharmaceutical industry; (3) the political-economic structure of the pharmaceutical industry; (4) consumption/consumerism of medications; (5) and bio-knowledge. The article suggests that a systematic analysis of these areas leads one to consider pharmacological practice a sui generis apparatus of power, which reaches beyond the purely disciplinary and biopolitical levels to encompass molecular configurations, thereby giving rise not only to new types of government over life, but also to new struggles for life, extending from molecular to population-wide levels.