Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun;17(2):173-189.
doi: 10.1007/s11673-020-09982-x. Epub 2020 Jul 13.

Lessons from Corporate Influence in the Opioid Epidemic: Toward a Norm of Separation

Affiliations

Lessons from Corporate Influence in the Opioid Epidemic: Toward a Norm of Separation

Jonathan H Marks. J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Jun.

Abstract

There is overwhelming evidence that the opioid crisis-which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (and counting)-has been created or exacerbated by webs of influence woven by several pharmaceutical companies. These webs involve health professionals, patient advocacy groups, medical professional societies, research universities, teaching hospitals, public health agencies, policymakers, and legislators. Opioid companies built these webs as part of corporate strategies of influence that were designed to expand the opioid market from cancer patients to larger groups of patients with acute or chronic pain, to increase dosage as well as opioid use, to downplay the risks of addiction and abuse, and to characterize physicians' concerns about the addiction and abuse risks as "opiophobia." In the face of these pervasive strategies, conflict of interest policies have proven insufficient for addressing corporate influence in medical practice, medical research, and public health policy. Governments, the academy, and civil society need to develop counterstrategies to insulate themselves from corporate influence and to preserve their integrity and public trust. These strategies require a paradigm shift-from partnerships with the private sector, which are ordinarily vehicles for corporate influence, to a norm of separation.

Keywords: Conflict of interest; Corporate influence; Institutional integrity; Opioids; Public health ethics; Public-private partnerships.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Aaron D, Siegel M. Sponsorship of national health organizations by two major soda companies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2017;52(1):20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). 2002. $3 million gift from Purdue Pharma to support MGH pain program. AAAS Eureka Alert, February 7. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/mgh-mg020702.php. Accessed December 1, 2019.
    1. Anson, P. 2019. Pain Management Association shutting down. Pain News Network, February 2. https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2019/2/2/pain-management-associa.... Accessed December 1, 2019.
    1. Applbaum K. Getting to yes: Corporate power and the creation of a psychopharmaceutical blockbuster. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry. 2009;33(2):185–215. doi: 10.1007/s11013-009-9129-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Armstrong, D. 2019. Inside Purdue Pharma’s media playbook: How it planted the opioid “anti-story.” Propublica, November 19. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-purdue-pharma-media-playbook-h.... Accessed December 1, 2019.

Substances