GMC says it can’t force doctors to disclose payments from drug companies
BMJ 2016; 354 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3806 (Published 07 July 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;354:i3806Read all the latest BMJ articles on Disclosure UK and view the linked infographics here.
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It is clear that the GMC does not have the legal power to force doctors to disclose their financial links with the pharmaceutical industry. It is equally clear that these links can influence prescribing. The GMC cannot therefore ignore their influence.
The GMC will rightly only revalidate a doctor and grant a license to practise if their probity is not in question.
It should not be difficult for the GMC to devise an appropriate declaration for doctors to sign, as part of their revalidation, to avoid any concerns over their probity while fulfilling the need of the public to know they are unduly influenced by Big Pharma.
The current vountary ABPI system is inadequate.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have been involved in an informative 'episodic discussion' with David Oliver, about the differences between, interactions between and applications in practice of, law and ethics.
I think this is one for David: in a nutshell the GMC cannot legally require this disclosure, but it seems clear that 'the GMC would like all doctors to disclose' (which is, in my terms, 'an ethical position'). An ethical position, I agree with, personally. But it seems that 'law trumps ethics' - which is my usual contention.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: GMC says it can’t force doctors to disclose payments from drug companies
The GMC is intending to update the information it includes on the GMC Register. The consultation seeking views ends in October 2016. Respondents may use the online form or request a paper document from the GMC. One of the issues is how much information respondents think should be made transparent, including of the Interests of Practitioners.
Competing interests: No competing interests