Ethics-Governance: Article: eMJA: Moynihan & Sweet, Medicine, the media and monetary interests: the need for transparency and professionalism

Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles

Articles indexes: a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| f \| g \| h \| i \| j \| k \| l \| m \| n \| o \| p \| q \| r \| s \| t \| u \| v \| w \| x \| y \| z \| other

Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title.
eMJA: Moynihan & Sweet, Medicine, the media and monetary interests: the need for transparency and professionalism Medicine and the Media. Medicine, the media and monetary interests: the need for transparency and professionalism Ray Moynihan and Melissa Sweet MJA 2000; 173: 631-634. Emerging evidence suggests that media coverage of medicine is increasingly promotional in nature. Recent Australian examples include misleading newspaper articles on an experimental cancer vaccine and a high profile television current affairs segment on a new influenza drug, which failed to disclose the industry ties of a key expert featured in the report. There are widening concerns that this problem in medical journalism may be exacerbated by the growing commercialisation of medical and scientific research, and the increasing ties between researchers, doctors and pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. Closer links between industry and medicine are being explicitly encouraged both in academia and the health care sector for the mutual benefits they bring. However, these partnerships are the cause of growing unease within medicine. In the United States, rigorous legislation governing research protocols is being proposed, and in Australia new ethical guidelines covering industry-profession relationships are being promulgated. If one of the media's roles is informing the community about the business of health and medicine in a fair and accurate way, a cultural change in medical journalism is required. In November 1999, one of Australia's high circulation newspapers published a prominent story about a new cancer vaccine that had "tripled life expectancy in trials".1 In May 2000 the Australian Press Council upheld a complaint from a leading cancer expert that this report, versions of which were published in sister newspapers across the country, was both misleading and inaccurate.2 While the Australian Press Council made no judgement about the scientific evidence supporting the new vaccine, the finding served as a timely reminder of the need for more scepticism in medical journalism. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_11_041200/moynihan/moynihan.html


2006 Ethics-Governance.com