Last week I watched with much interest the 52nd Maudsley debate. The motion debated was: “This house believes that the use of long term psychiatric medications is causing more harm than good”.
The Maudsley debate was covered in a head-to-head BMJ article.
Given that I have petitioned the Scottish Government for a Sunshine Act I was interested in what this Maudsley Debate might say about our approach to transparency of financial conflicts of interest:
This particular aspect of the 52nd Maudsley Debate reminded me of a series of letters published in the BMJ a decade ago. It is interesting to consider what has, and what hasn’t changed, in the intervening ten years. The letters were in response to the following 2003 editorial:
In a letter of response Dr K S Madhaven argued that “the market has us all in its grip”:
Whereas Professor Simon Wessely, in his letter of response, was of a view that “It is time we all grew up”:
Professor Wessely began his letter of 2003:
It is interesting to reflect on changes that have occurred in the United Kingdom since 2003:
- Continuing Professional Development (CPD) has become a requirement of GMC Revalidation:
- the pharmaceutical industry now has to follow the ABPI code and healthcare professionals no longer receive branded products such as pens
- “Sandwich lunches” (sponsored Continuing Medical Education – CME) remain core to continuing education. In NHS Scotland, at least two NHS Boards rely entirely on industry sponsorship to support the education of their staff
- It remains the case that, at any educational conference, neither the audience nor the public have any idea of how much speakers may have received from the pharmaceutical industry or commercial enterprises in the past three years. The proposed 2016 ABPI register is unlikely to help as any individual can opt out of disclosing payments received. Going by the experience in America, in some cases considerable sums may be routinely involved.
Professor Wessely, in 2003, was concerned about over-regulation, a concern that many of us, including myself have some sympathy with:
Watching the Maudsley debate, in 2015, I was reminded of Professor Wessely’s 2003 fear that “trust [was] gradually being eroded” . It would seem to me that the audience of 2015 would agree with Professor Wessely that this may indeed have happened. However such erosion of trust would seem to be for exactly the opposite reason given by Professor Wessely. It would appear to be the lack of transparency rather than an “Orwellian world of prohibitions” that has contributed to this.
Following the 52nd Maudsley Debate I have written to Professor Wessely, as President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to ask if the College might support a single, central, open, searchable database where all payments to healthcare workers, academics and researchers must be disclosed.