Ethical issues in pharmacology
-By Timothy Lyons
Dr Leemon McHenry examines ethical issues in pharmacology. He argues that pharmaceutical companies have an obligation to report all of the data in a truthful way so that patients can make properly informed decisions (McHenry, 2006). The article is an argument that information which comes as a result of scientific studies does not provide sufficient evidence for the theory of the serotonin hypothesis of depression, which is that depression is caused by a deficit of this particular neurotransmitter and deals somewhat with ethical issues in pharmacology. His discussion of the argument is that the hypothesis is flawed. He claims that pharmaceutical companies use the flawed argument along with biased research ghost articles to sell more medications. One of his conclusions is that these companies should fully disclose information about these medicines.
This article made it apparent that it is more important than ever to be objective and not become polarized in looking at information especially when dealing with ethical issues in pharmacology. It is important to study the issues when it comes to helping clients make decisions regarding the use of medically assisted treatment.The only true way to make an ethical decision is through understanding the facts of the ethical dilemma. The most important aspect in regard to pharmacology is that if the claimed facts about the industry are true, even in some sense, then it would be important to understand the limitations and possible problems that can arise in the consumer who might use these medications.
This article is suspect to many of the same criticisms that Dr. McHenry levies against the pharmaceutical industry in his treatise on ethical issues in pharmacology. I first noticed a confirmation bias even within the research. The use of unscientific exaggeration words like always and constantly take away from the position. From a philosophical standpoint I do not agree with his initial premise that the serotonin hypothesis is that his issue alone is responsible for or a cause of depression (Albert & Benkelfat, 2013) . His erroneous conclusion which is more opinion than fact seems to be based upon earlier studies that have included as little as five subjects and make me consider more closely his stance on ethical issues in pharmacology. He argues that there is no direct causality as proof that the hypothesis is flawed while making similar direct causal argument statements himself. Reading that Dr. McHenry is a philosophy teacher, I think that his use of fallacious reasoning and ad hominem arguments is a lesson in these rather than an education article about dangers in the industry.
I have become more aware of the fact that studies and statistics can be manipulated on both sides. There is truth somewhere in the middle. I am more informed as to my role in understanding pharmacology which seems that I must wade through any number of polar arguments about ethical issues in pharmacology so that I can reach my own informed decisions in the pursuit to help others.
References
Albert, P. R., & Benkelfat, C. (2013). The neurobiology of depression—revisiting the serotonin hypothesis. II. Genetic, epigenetic and clinical studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368(1615), . doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0535
Drugwatch.com. (2012, January 22). Pharmaceutical Companies and Disease Mongering. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from https://www.drugwatch.com/2012/01/22/disease-mongering-and-drug-marketing/
McHenry, L. (2006). Ethical Issues in Psychopharmacology. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(7), 405-410. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013185