Periodically, in response to a request, I’ll get a quote from a doctor (via a publicist) that mentions a specific product. Inevitably, I Google the doctor and he or she has been or is on the payroll for the folks who make the product.
There’s no mention of conflict of interest in these emails, so it makes me mad, and I assume the publicists are trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
Recently, that happened again. In email correspondence about it, in which I expressed my anger, the publicist actually defended the practice: “Dr. [____] consults from time to time with the company as do many medical professionals for the pharma and OTC markets. … As you know, Leigh Ann, many reputable practicing physicians consult with manufacturers from time to time to help them develop better products so people can be well.”
I responded, “Yes, I know that. And as you may know, it is then inappropriate for them to promote the companies they ‘consult.'”
Much to my amazement, she responded, “I was not aware of that, to be honest with you, and not sure whose policy you are referring to–or perhaps some code of ethics I am not aware of. However, you see it all the time in the medical journals where researchers are in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies (disclosed of course) and surprise! The research makes the pharma drugs look good.”
Have I really been getting these conflict-of-interest pitches simply because publicists don’t know any better?
Anyway, whatever the reason, this practice makes me never want to use the publicist–or any of his or her clients–again because I can’t trust the person.
It would be wonderful if you could address this. I know you have a large audience, and maybe there are publicists who truly don’t know that this is absolutely unacceptable and insulting.
What do you say, publicists?
Do these doctors need to hire new PR people? Or is what Leigh Ann wrote common practice in the medical community? Do journalists actually fall for this?
[…] 4. Saying too little (I wrote about this Friday here.) […]
This is an issue I am adamant about myself. I am a PA and have been graduated and working for 30 years. Every major board and panel that makes recommendations for the general treatment of medical conditions have been on or are on the payroll of big pharma.
In my state, I can recommend a vitamin to you I think is best, but I can not sell you that vitamin. That is a conflict of interest. Is being paid for your opinion and then recommending a product of the person who pays you any different?
Physicians and all medical practitioners need to decide which side of the fence they want to be on – medicine or commerce? They should not be on both sides. I have much more to say on this issue but I will leave it there for now.
Unfortunately, it has become common practice for physicians to “shill” for the drug companies. The American Dairy Association fostered its own research on the value of daily milk intake. Guess what? The PR says you need milk. Which, you don’t. You need the additives!
The lines between ethical and common practice have blurred just as they have in politics. And, in the area of publicity. Perhaps, most turn a blind eye to have jobs.
I agree with Leigh Ann that it isn’t acceptable. If PR has become confused with ethical issues, find someone else. IF that’s possible. Reminds me of a movie many years back with Dustin Hoffman playing a crazed PR man who was sick of lying and sold “Boxy but Safe” Volvos.
Thank you very much for publishing this, Joan, and thank you to the readers who have responded. I’m very interested to see what the publicity world at large thinks of this issue.
And you guys are right; so many product have doctors promoting them, and many studies are sponsored by companies that benefit from positive outcomes. I actually don’t have a problem with either, from a strictly journalist point of view, as long as it’s crystal clear what’s going on. If a press release quotes a doctor, the bias is clear, and medical journals print conflicts of interest. In both cases, I have the power to choose not to print or at least divulge the conflict of interest — because it’s been divulged to me.
My beef is with submitting a quoted opinion to me, in which the doctor casually mentions a brand name, but which never mentions the conflict of interest. For example, sometimes I ask for tips from doctors. I love telling our readers the brand names unbiased doctors recommend! But I was surprised that this publicist claimed ignorance about the fact that conflicts of interest are absolutely unacceptable.
Do you guys really think this is something publicists don’t know?
Thanks again,
Leigh Ann Hubbard
Managing Editor
James Hubbard’s My Family Doctor
As a professional PR person, I can say that if you don’t know that there is a conflict of interest in this situation, you should not be PR person. This is pretty much PR 101, just as not accepting clients in competing businesses is a conflict.
I’m sure that the PR person in question just wanted to get her client some ink. And frankly, a lot of reporters just want a quote. Most do not have the time to do the research and it would be my guess that people get away with this type of thing more than we realize.
However, in my opinion, the onus of responsibility lies with the PR person to always conduct business on behalf of the client in the most ethical manner possible. If there is any question at all, a good rule of thumb is to let the opportunity go.
Given that there are now schools that teach Ethics 101 along with their regular courses (even law schools), perhaps many PR personnel don’t know. Sad, isn’t it. PR is about trusting someone’s word, their reputation. That is the point of Public Relations!
Unfortunately, the ethical lines have become obscured. How we deal with that is up to each PR person and what they’ll tolerate while trying to do their own job.
However, I always wonder, as Leigh Ann does, how is it that a person could be in the business of representing someone or an ideal to the general public yet not know the rules? Perhaps something for Plato to muse. Misleading others is basically lying and is as old as Time.
I think some publicists indeed may NOT know. It’s similar to debate over the commercials by an inventor of an artificial heart about a cholesterol-lowering drug. Those commercials aren’t running now. If I were a publicist, I’d mention that the specialist was paid for his/her opinion. Then the onus is on the entity using the PR material. Even in the celebrity papers, you see a disclaimer of sorts: “Jane Doe looks like she’s had Botox,” says XXX M.D., a plastic surgeon who has not treated Jane Doe.
I agree with Leigh Ann that this relationship *must* be disclosed to the journalist, who can then factor this in while creating the story. Sometimes, s/he may find there’s truth to the claim and can find independent verification not only the payroll and not just quoting the press releases.
L.M. Steen’s example of the “boxy but safe Volvo” caught my attention–because I have wondered for several years why Volvo allowed itself to be purchased by Ford–a company that has given the public ample reasons *not* to trust it on safety (two examples: Pintos that explode, Explorers that roll over). Considering that safety was the main brand attribute that Volvo stressed for decades, I think the only reason there hasn’t been a huge backlash is that Ford is very quiet about its ownership.
Of course, there are honest ways to do business, and they actually work better. In my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, I show why honesty and integrity are cornerstones of business success. And in the Business Ethics Pledge (linked from my name, above), which Joan has mentioned in Publicity Hound, I encourage businesses to declare their values publicly, recognizing that it improves public perception as well as helps create a client where this kind of behavior is not tolerated.
“…it improves public perception as well as helps create a client where this kind of behavior is not tolerated.”
Ooops–that was supposed to be “climate,” not “client.”
[…] Very interesting discussion about the ethics of disclosure over at Joan Stewart’s Publicity Hound blog. […]
Coming from the continuing professional education side-this kind of behavior is simply not tolerated in either pharmacy CE, nursing or medical CE. Full disclosure not only has to be provided to participants before the event- even in an on line course-and the CE provider has the added responsibility of resolving any conflicts of interest before the program is released-and documenting the actions taken…an interesting dilemma!
[…] When doctors shill for pharmas what a PR person to do The Posted by root 27 minutes ago (http://publicityhound.net) Reply to this comment comment by victoria rierdan hurley given that there are now schools that teach ethics 101 along with their regular of behavior is simply not tolerated in either pharmacy ce nursing or medical ce gnu stuff powered by wordpress neuron Discuss | Bury | News | When doctors shill for pharmas what a PR person to do The […]
I’m sure that the PR person in question just wanted to get her client some ink. And frankly, a lot of reporters just want a quote. Most do not have the time to do the research and it would be my guess that people get away with this type of thing more than we realize.
However, in my opinion, the onus of responsibility lies with the PR person to always conduct business on behalf of the client in the most ethical manner possible. If there is any question at all, a good rule of thumb is to let the opportunity go.